
Class. 
Book. 



PRESENTED RY 



BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA. 



A HISTORICAL STUDY OF THEIR ORIGIN AND THE 
PRINCIPLES OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT. 



BY 

WILLIAM HENRY ALLISON, B. D. 



CHICAGO 

1906 



0* 



b 



3 






K* W 



Gift. Sirs. William K, Allison. Jan. 22, 1942 









CONTENTS. 

Introduction, with Bibliography 5 

Chapter I. — Definition and Line of Approach 9 

Definition. The Jerusalem conference. The obligation of 
fellowship. 

Chapter II. — Early Principles of Fellowship among Baptist 

Churches 13 

( 1 ) In England. Contact of American and English Baptists. 
Confessions of 161 1, 1644, 1656, 1677, 1678, ("Orthodox 
Creed,") 1689. 

(2) In America. Organization of the Kittery Church. Lim- 
ited opportunities for inter-church fellowship before the Great 
Awakening. The Philadelphia Association. 

Chapter III. — The Entrance of the Council as a Recognized 

Institution in Baptist Polity 27 

The Middletown council of 171 2. The Cape May Court House 
council of 1712. The ordination councils of the First Church, 
Boston, of 1 7 18 and 1738. The Springfield council of 1740. 
The Boston installation council of 1764. The Warwick, R. I., 
(Boston 2nd) council of 1743. The New Light Movement. 
Associations as councils. Associations and the council. The 
Shaftsbury association "Answer" of 1791. Why did not the 
association absorb the council? 

Chapter IV. — The Status of the Council 42 

The council the product of fellowship. Not essential to the 
individual church. Its relation to the local church advisory. 
The broader sphere of the council as an institution. ( 1 ) The 
relation of the council to the churches at large. The compe- 
tency of the council. Protection from packed councils. Con- 
flict of councils. (2) The relation of the council to the church 
calling it. The acceptance of the advice of the council. The 
representation of the church in the council. The enlargement 
of the council. (3) The relation of the council to its con- 
stituent churches. Are they really represented? (4) The 
ex parte council. (5) Opposition to the council. 

3 



Chapter V. — The Functions of the Council 58 

(1) In the constitution and recognition of churches. (2) In 
dissolution and disfellowship. (3) In ordination. (4) In in- 
stallation and dismission. (5) In deposition and restoration. 
(6) Councils called in the interests of peace. (7) Promotion 
of local or general denominational activities and welfare. 

Chapter VI. — The Further Relation of Associations and 

Councils 81 

Associations continuing to act as councils. The problem of 
the relation of association and council. The Philadelphia plans 
of 1837 and 1841. The advisory committees. 

Chapter VII. — The Per?nanent Council 9^ 



Chapter VIII. — Concluding Remarks 1 

Appendix A. List of councils to 1820. 
Appendix B. Councils for ordination of deacons. 



10 



INTRODUCTION WITH BIBLIOGRAPHY 



The study, of which the following pages are the result, was 
begun with the purpose of discovering the value of the council as a 
working instrument in the Baptist denomination. It was intended 
to limit it to the examination of as many individual councils as 
possible, classified according to the function which each council was 
called to perform, and then to the ascertainment of the actual results 
of each upon the various interests directly or indirectly involved. 

The writer, however, soon found his interest gathering about the 
council as an institution, whose origin and development had appa- 
rently never been subjected to any thorough historical investigation. 
It is believed that the original purpose of the study has been even 
more adequately carried out than if there had been no change in its 
centre of interest ; for the efficiency of the council has been an 
essential factor in its development as an institution. It is hoped, 
moreover, that as here presented, this study will be a contribution 
to a better understanding, on the part of earnest and conscientious 
people both within and without the Baptist churches, of the true 
spirit of our denominational fellowship. 

The writer would here express his appreciation of their friendly 
assistance, in the work of research or in the preparation of the 
manuscript, to the several members of the Department of Church 
History in the University of Chicago ; to Dr. J. Franklin Jameson ; 
to Rev. W. C. Bitting, D. D. ; to the numerous individuals who 
have contributed through correspondence or conversation ; to per- 
sonal friends who have extended their hospitality during researches 
in Ithaca, Hamilton, New York City, New Haven and Providence ; 
also to the library staffs in the institutions mentioned below. 

Use has been made of the following libraries and historical 
collections : Boston, Mass., Public Library, Congregational Library, 
New England Historic- Genealogical Society, Massachusetts His- 
torical Society ; Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University ; Newton 

5 



Centre, Mass., Newton Theological Institution, Backus Historical 
Society ; Worcester, Mass., American Antiquarian Society ; Pro- 
vidence, R. I., John Carter Brown Library, Brown University, 
R. I. Historical Society ; New Haven, Conn., Public Library, Yale 
University; New York City, Lenox Library, (also Records of the 
Southern New York Baptist Association and Records of the 
Permanent Council of New York City and Vicinity) ; Hamilton, 
N. Y., The Samuel Colgate Baptist Historical Collection ; Ithaca, 
N. Y., Cornell University ; Philadelphia, Pa., American Baptist 
Historical Society ; Upland, Pa., Crozer Theological Seminary ; 
Chicago, 111., University of Chicago, Public Library, Newberry 
Library. 

A wide use has been made of histories of towns and local church- 
es, historical sermons and addresses, and Minutes of Associations. 
Specific references will be found in the foot-notes ; in the case of 
material drawn from the Associational records, unless otherwise 
indicated, the information will be found in the Minutes of the 
appropriate year. 

Although much of the data referred to is gleaned from The 
Watchman and its predecessors, practically the complete file from 
1 8 19 having been examined, the other denominational papers have 
been examined more than the relatively few references to them 
might indicate. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY. 



Barclay, Robert. "The Inner Life of the Religious Societies of 
the Commonwealth." London, 1867. 

Hanserd Knollys Society. "Confessions of Faith and other Public 
Documents, Illustrative of the History of the Baptist Churches 
of England in the 17th Century." London, J 854. 

Crosby, Thomas. "History of the English Baptists." 4 vols. 
London, 1738- 1740. 

Ivimey, Joseph. "History of the English Baptists." 4 vols. Lon- 
don, 1811-1830. 

Backus, Isaac. "A History of New England, with Reference to 
the Denomination called Baptists." 3 vols. Boston, 1779- 
1796. 2 vols. 1 87 1. 

Benedict, David. "Fifty Years Among the Baptists." N. Y., i860. 

Burrage, H. S. "History of the Baptists in New England." Phil- 
adelphia, 1894. 

Vedder, H. C. "History of the Baptists in the Middle States." 
Philadelphia, 1898. 

Newman, A. H. "A History of the Baptist Churches in the United 
States." N. Y. 1894. 

Haynes, D. C. "The Baptist Denomination ; Its History, Doc- 
trines and Ordinances: Its Polity, etc." N. Y. 1857. 

Millet, Joshua. "A History of the Baptists in Maine." Portland, 
1845. 

Burrage, H. S. "History of the Baptists in Maine." Portland, 
1904. 

Wright, Stephen. "Shaftsbury Baptist Association from 1751 to 

1853-" 

Halsey, Lewis. "History of the Seneca Baptist Association." 

Troy, N. Y., 1853. 
Cook, R. B. "The Early and Later Delaware Baptists." Phil., 

1880. 
Edwards, Morgan. "Materials toward a History of the Baptists in 

Jersey." Phil. 1792. 

The same for "Pennsylvania." Phil., 1770. 

The same for "Delaware State." Phil., 1885. 
Semple, Robert B. "A History of the Rise and Progress of the 

Baptists in Virginia." Virginia, 18 10, 1894. 

7 



Thomas, David. "The Virginian Baptist." Baltimore, 1774. 

Burkitt, Lemuel, and Reed, Jesse. "A Concise History of the 
Kehukee Baptist Association." Halifax, N. C, 1803, 

Wood, Furman. "A History of the Charleston Association." 
Charleston, S. C, 181 1. 

Mercer, Jesse. "A History of the Georgia Baptist Association." 
Washington, Ga., 1838. 

Holcombe, Hosea. "A History of the Rise and Progress of the 
Baptists in Alabama." Phil., 1840. 

Walker, Edwin S. "History of the Springfield (111.) Baptist As- 
sociation." Springfield, 111., 1881. 

Cotton, John. "Book of the Keyes," quoted in 

Mather, Increase. "The First Principles of New England." Cam- 
bridge, 1675. 

Dexter, H. M. "The Congregationalism of the Last Three Hun- 
dred Years, as seen in its Literature." N. Y. 1890. 
Especially Lecture X. "Ecclesiastical Councils." 
"A Glance at the Ecclesiastical Councils of New England." 
Boston, 1867. (Reprint from "New Englander" of April, 

1867.) 

Quint, A. H. "The Authority of Councils." Congregational 

Quarterly, Vol. 2. (July, i860.) 
Hazen, H. A. "The Future of Ecclesiastical Councils." (Paper 

read before the National Council of Congregational Churches, 

Portland, Oregon, 1898.) 
Edwards, Morgan. ( ?) "The Customs of Primitive Churches." 

(1768?) 
Stearns, J. G. "The Primitive Church." Utica, N. Y., 1832. 
Walker, Warham. "Church Discipline." Boston and Utica, 

N. Y., 1844. 
Crowell, William. "The Church Member's Manual of Ecclesiasti- 
cal Principles, Doctrines and Discipline." Boston, 1847. 
Wayland, Francis. "Notes on the Principles and Practices of 

Baptist Churches." N. Y. 1857. 
Anderson, Galusha. "Notes on Church Polity." Boston, 1872. 
Hiscox, Edward T. "The New Directory for Baptist Churches." 

Phil., 1894. 

"Star Book on Baptist Councils." N. Y, 1881. 

"Star Book for Ministers." N. Y. 1878. 

8 



CHAPTER I. 

DEFINITION AND LINE OF APPROACH. 

The term "council" has sometimes been loosely used of confer- 
ences more or less formal in nature, in which Christians, either as 
individuals or as representatives of churches or other organizations, 
have met for consultation and perhaps the formulation of some policy 
for Christian activity. In Baptist polity, however, the term has 
come to have a technical sense, viz., an organised body, convened at 
the call of some local church and composed of representatives of 
the churches to which the call is issued, for the purpose of advising 
the convening church in regard to such matters as are stated in the 
call. Such a definition is not to be applied too rigidly, for we must 
recognize that there may be certain modifications of the character- 
istics mentioned above, and yet the body may very properly be 
called a council. Sometimes, as in the constitution of a new church, 
the call for a council is issued by a body of Christians not yet pos- 
sessing an ecclesiastical organization; again, a council may contain 
others than representatives specially appointed by the churches. 
Moreover, this definition which we have given applies rather to the 
somewhat stereotyped form of the present-day council than to the 
more plastic conditions of its early development. But the convening 
of a council, strictly so called, involves in every case, directly or 
indirectly, the relation of a local church to the other churches of the 
same faith and order. If there was only one Baptist Church, or if 
each Baptist church stood in absolute isolation from every other 
similar body, there could be no such institution as a Baptist council. 
In other words, the existence of the council as a universally recog- 
nized instrument in Baptist polity demands that it be adjusted to that 
much emphasized Baptist principle, — the independence of the local 
church. It is really from this point of view that we find special 
interest in our subject, as it is from its relation to the fundamental 
constitution of Baptist churches that the council becomes of prime 
importance. It would be possible to study it with an antiquarian's 
interest, attracted especially by such aspects of quaintness as are 
more or less common to all the ecclesiastical functions of the colonial 
period. Another possibility would be the treatment of the council 
as an approach to the history of the local church, just as a study 
of the foreign relations of a country through its conventions and 



IO BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

treaties will reveal much that is of moment in the domestic life of 
the people. If we possessed the questions which members of coun- 
cils have put to candidates for ordination during the last two hun- 
dred years, we would have most valuable data for tracing the line of 
emphasis in theological thought among Baptists during that period. 
Here, however, we lack sufficient definite information from the 
sources, for the scanty nature of the official reports of councils, 
which rarely more than chronicle their organization and decisions, 
places a narrow limit upon the positive knowledge to be gained 
through such a process. Our purpose, however, is rather to trace 
the rise and development of the council as an institution and by the 
historical method to ascertain its constitutional basis. As the inde- 
pendency of the local church has been received as an axiom of Bap- 
tist polity, can there be, consistent with this, any such institution as 
the council? How has it come about that it holds the position it 
does to-day? 

(i) It may not be superfluous to state that the Baptist council 
is in no way connected with that historic line beginning with Nicaea 
and continuing at intervals, sometimes of centuries, until the Vatican 
in 1870. Those councils were authoritative bodies with legislative 
powers, — sometimes judicial, — which were supposed to represent 
the church universal ; to their decrees, every national and local 
church must yield full obedience. The whole status of the Baptist 
council, as we shall see, is fundamentally different in both its con- 
stitution and functions. 

(2) The justification of the council in Baptist polity is often 
fought in the axiom of ecclesiastical practice, — that a New Testa- 
ment precedent is a sufficient warrant for any institution. In Acts 
15, we have the record of a council held in apostolic days; this is 
the model upon which Baptist councils have been formed, we are 
told, and all their actions should conform to this New Testament 
precedent. It should be evident to every one who reads the account 
of the conference at Jerusalem that it established no precedent for 
conciliar legislation authoritative over the churches, such as cul- 
minated through the series of councils in the decrees of Trent and 
the Vatican. A question involving most fundamental principles 
both in doctrine and practice had arisen in the church at Antioch. 
It seemed advisable for the church there to get as much light on 
the subject as possible, so they selected Paul and Barnabas, with 
certain others, to go up to Jerusalem, where they could consult with 
the apostles and the elders about the question. Whether the Epistle 
to the Galatians refers to this conference or not, it is certainly true 
that Paul did not go up to Jerusalem to receive authoritative instruc- 
tions on a question which involved the very life of the Gospel which 



DEFINITION AND LINE OF APPROACH I I 

had been directly revealed to him. 1 While the matter was probably 
discussed by the leaders in private, 2 it was finally brought before 
the whole church at Jerusalem. Their decision, though dignified 
by the title "decrees," was a decidedly neutral utterance and seems 
to have had little weight in the solution of the crucial question at 
issue. 3 

From both the occasion of this conference and the nature and 
results of its decision, if not the form, its advisory character is evi- 
dent. May it not, then, be placed under Dr. Dexter's classification 
of "Councils called to give light"? 4 In one essential particular it 
fails to be a council. It bears no trace of separate organization apart 
from the church itself, being simply a meeting of the church of Jeru- 
salem, — in which, indeed, the messengers from Antioch were allowed 
to participate. This fact, — its lack of separate organization, — is a 
sufficient reason for not considering the meeting in Jerusalem the 
prototype of the modern council. Moreover, there is to be found 
neither here nor in any other part of the New Testament the prece- 
dent for the submission to a council of the questions of the ordina- 
tion of a candidate to the ministry or of the recognition of new 
churches, the most frequent occasions for the convening of councils 
to-day. 

(3) Where, then, are we to look for the sources from which 
has sprung the Baptist council ? It is generally conceded by Ameri- 
can Baptists that the streams of local church polity of apostolic 
days gradually merged into the great hierarchical system dominated 
by the Bishops of Rome; but that from this highly developed and 
centralized absolutism they emerge again at the Protestant Reforma- 
tion in the streams of Independency. To be sure, there were some 
obscure sects before the Reformation which kept alive the concep- 
tion of the church as the local body of believers, who at least op- 
posed the prevailing idea of catholicity; but persecution generally 
prevented the formation of any such local church organization as 
must precede the existence of formal inter-church relations. The 
question of the fellowship of the local churches could arise only after 
these had attained self-consciousness and a sense of permanence. 
For our purpose, therefore, it will be unnecessary to go back of the 

'Gal. 1 :ii, 12. 

z Acts 15:6. Cf. Gal. 2:2. 

3 The decrees, in view of Paul's acceptance of them, are merely the ad- 
vice that Gentile Christians abstain from those things which would especially 
offend their Jewish brethren. If, however, one accepts the hypothesis that 
the decrees are a later product of the Jerusalem church, though they cannot 
be considered extremely Judaistic, they remain no longer neutral. Cf. 
McGiffert, "The Apostolic Age," p. 211 sq. 

""Congregationalism" p. 599. 



12 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

emergence of Independency in the Reformation. It is immaterial, 
moreover, whether we look to Robert Browne as the first modern 
exponent of the independency of the local church or whether we look 
earlier among the Anabaptists. By the time the Baptists in America 
had held anything which could be termed a council, Independency 
had been on trial for several decades in the mother-country, and for 
its Scripturalness and practicality, such men as John Robinson and 
Oliver Cromwell and John Milton stood as sponsors. As opposed 
to the Episcopalian and Presbyterian theories of the status of the 
local church and its governmental functions, the development of In- 
dependency is closely united to the great democratic movement 
which overthrew the Stuart despotism and re-established the State 
on the basis of a constitutional monarchy subject to Parliament, safe- 
guarding the liberties of the people by the Act of Toleration and the 
Bill of Rights. It would carry us too far afield to attempt even an 
outline sketch of that rapid rise of the people into power and respon- 
sibility which will ever make the seventeenth century a prominent 
stage in the progress of the race toward self-control and social 
efficiency. It must suffice to call attention to the fact that the insti- 
tution, the somewhat obscure rise and development of which we are 
to study , is vitally connected with the process of political evolution 
in this period to which we have just referred. It would be absurd 
to claim that Baptist councils have influenced the development of 
popular government ; but it may be confidently asserted that such an 
institution could only have come into being in connection with 
democratic ideas such as were in the seventeenth century moulding 
the political, social and ecclesiastical institutions of England and 
America. 

The re-discovery of the local Christian church and its inde- 
pendence was not merely a triumph for individualism, nor did it 
lead in ecclesiastical polity to isolation. The fundamental principle 
in the constitution of the local church was the fellowship in Christ 
which drew Christians together to form the body of Christ. Inher- 
ent in this very principle was the obligation of Christian churches 
to manifest a similar fellowship among themselves. It is here, then, 
where the developing sense of fellowship is awakening that of obli- 
gation among the churches, that we may look for the sources of 
an institution which rests upon the obligations of fellowship. It is 
here that we find our starting-point and the line of approach to our 
subject. 



CHAPTER II. 

EARLY PRINCIPLES OF FELLOWSHIP AMONG BAPTIST CHURCHES. 

i. In England. 
Much has been written on the development of the polity of the 
Independents of England. How directly the Baptists were con- 
sciously influenced by their example is problematical ; most likely 
each profited somewhat by the experiences of the other, each work- 
ing out the same fundamental principles with not far different re- 
sults. It is also uncertain how largely the ideas of the English 
Baptists were transferred to America. Is it possibly irrelevant, 
then, for us to consider even briefly the early principles of fellcw- 
ship among the Baptist churches of England? Our purpose is not 
to show that the council as an institution was transferred bodily 
from England, for there is no evidence that this was the case. We 
wish to show merely that the Baptist churches of England of the 
seventeenth century plainly recognized alongside the principle of 
the independence of the local church in such matters as related 
solely to its own affairs the principle of interdependence as a nec- 
essary check upon any encroachment of the local church upon the 
rights of others. Whether we are right or not in asserting the 
recognition of this second principle must be judged by the evidence 
which we shall immediately adduce ; meanwhile we find the relevancy 
of what at first may seem a digression in this fact, — that whatever 
ideas of church polity were generally accepted among English Bap- 
tists would not be unknown among their American brethren. In 
the first place, not a few of the early Baptists in America were ad- 
herents of that faith in England, and many of them members of 
Baptist churches there. The personal channels of communication 
between the two countries became of course more numerous in the 
eighteenth century; but in the previous fifty years, the few scattered 
Baptists could not have been wholly ignorant of the policy of fellow- 
ship among the English churches. John Clarke, the first pastor of 
the Newport, R. I., church, was a Baptist most likely before leaving 
for America; his pastorate of 32 years he interrupted with a sojourn 
of 12 years in England, (1652-1664), in the interests of the colony. 1 
During this time, he must have become thoroughly acquainted with 



1 Newman, "Hist, of the Bap. Churches," pp. 108, 111. 

13 



14 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

the inter-relations of the Baptist churches there. Of more direct 
value to show that the early Baptists were not wholly ignorant of 
the faith and practices of their English brethren is the fact that at 
the organization of the church at Kittery, Maine, in September, 
1682, when delegates from the Boston church were present, the 
Confession of Faith which the church adopted was that "put forth 
by the elders and brethren of the churches in London and the 
country in England dated in year 1682. " 2 In this case, at least, 
we find that only a few months after the adoption of a confessional 
statement by the Baptists in the vicinity of London, a group of 
American Baptists make use of it as their declaration of faith, with 
the approval of the Boston delegates. 

This particular creed of 1682 the writer has not found, but if it 
dealt with inter-church relations, it probably was not far different 
upon this point from the other Confessions of about the same date. 
We will now turn to some of the Declarations of Faith promulgated 
by the English Baptists during the seventeenth century to obtain 
what light we can on this phase of our subject. 

It is only natural that what is perhaps the earliest statement of 
English Baptists, made in 161 1, before they were in any position to 
proceed far in the positive work of the reconstruction of a church 
polity on the apostolic model, should go no farther than to assert the 
equality of the local churches. I refer to "A Declaration of Faith 
of English People, remaining at Amsterdam in Holland; Printed 
161 1," two of whose articles, (XIII. and XIV.), show that these 
"English People" were Baptists. 

"Wee Believe and Confess, — 

"XII. That as one congregation hath Christ, so 
hath all. And that the word of God cometh not from 
any one, neither to any one congregation in particular, 
but unto every particular church, as it doth unto all the 
world; And therefore no church ought to challenge any- 
prerogative over any other." 3 
This statement strikes at the primacy of any particular church 
such as had been claimed and exercised by Rome. It denies the 
right of any church to claim a "prerogative" over another, but does 
not go so far as to assert absolute independence on the part of each 
local congregation. It leaves wide room for the obligation of local 
churches to each other ; indeed, this principle is directly involved in 
the first sentence. Whatever rights the individual church may claim 



2 Burrage, "Hist, of Bapts. in N. E.," p. 55. 

3 Crosby, "Hist, of the Eng. Baptists," Vol. II., App. I. Also in "Con- 
fessions of Faith," Publications of the Hanserd Knollys Society. 



EARLY PRINCIPLES OF "FELLOWSHIP 1 5 

from its relation to Christ as its Head, it must also concede to every 
other church. This Article is in fact an application to church polity 
of the spirit of the Golden Rule; whatever oversight a church may 
exercise over others, it must be willing to receive in turn from them. 
There is nothing in this statement of an independence based upon a 
local church's possession of Christ to forbid a confederation of 
churches, if only the equality of each particular church is preserved. 
This "Declaration" of 1611, however, does not proceed so far in con- 
structive polity, for these early Baptists were not yet confronted 
by any serious problems of inter-church relations. 

In 1644, seven churches in London united in issuing "The Con- 
fession of Faith of those Churches which are commonly (though 
falsely) called Anabaptists; * * * " Among its articles is tc 
be found the following: — 

"XLVII. And although the particular Congrega- 
tions be distinct and severall Bodies, every one as a com- 
pact and knit Citie in itselfe ; yet are they all to walk by 
one and the same Rule, and by all meanes convenient to 
have the counsell and help one of another in all needfull 
affairs of the Church, as members of one body in the 
common faith under Christ their onely head." 4 
Here we have a positive advance beyond the Amsterdam Declara- 
tion of 161 1, which was capable of broad interpretation because it 
was rather neutral in tone. Meanwhile, Baptists had not only in- 
creased in number, but they had begun to organize into churches. 
It was probably not till 1633 tnat tne fi rst Baptist church in London 
was formed by a group of anti-pedobaptists who withdrew from the 
Separate churches to which they had previously belonged. Eleven 
years later, there appear to be at least six other Baptist churches 
within the limits of London, a fact which necessarily raised the ques- 
tion of fraternal relations. These churches did not look upon the 
matter as one of indifference, for this Article reveals the distinct 
recognition of these primitive English Baptists of the mutual obli- 
gations of churches to one another. Thus early in the development 



"Crosby, "Hist, of the Eng. Bapts.," Vol. I., App. II., gives what is 
apparently a 1646 edition of this same Confession under the title, "A Con- 
fession of Faith of seven Congregations of Christians in London, which are 
commonly, but unjustly called Anabaptists; . . . Printed at London, 
Anno 1646." Art XLVII. is as given in the text above save for a few 
unimportant verbal changes. So also Art. XLVI. of a 1652 edition under the 
title, "A Confession of Faith of the several Congregations or Churches of 
Christ in London which are commonly (though unjustly) called Anabaptists, 
etc." The 1644 edition is prefaced by an address "To All Christian Readers," 
and is "subscribed in the names of seven Churches in London." This is 
in the Colgate Historical Collection. 



l6 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

of their ecclesiastical organization they show by this united state- 
ment of their doctrines that they do not believe in isolation, and that 
other interests and principles of their common church life will hold 
in check any tendency in Independency to become predominatingly 
centrifugal and subversive of the true Christian idea of unity. There 
is here, however, no suggestion of any definite method by which the 
churches may "have the counsell and help of one another." That 
they are "all to walk by one and the same Rule," does not mean that 
all shall conform to one mode of procedure, but that they shall be 
guided by the Scriptures. These Baptists do not look upon a New 
Testament precedent as a sine qua non of inter-church counsel, 
which may be had "by all meanes convenient." The way is clearly 
left open for the development of any organization for effective fel- 
lowship, such as councils, associations, and missionary societies, 
though these particular institutions were probably not in the minds 
of those who issued this Confession of 1644. 

The conception that the mutual relations of independent churches 
rest not upon the permissibility but upon the obligation of fellow- 
ship is still more explicitly stated in "A Confession of Faith of 
several congregations of Christ in the county of Somerset, and some 
churches in the counties near adjacent. Printed at London, Anno 
1656." 

"XXVIII. That it is the duty of the members of 
Christ in the order of the gospel, though in several con- 
gregations and assemblies (being one in the head) if 
occasion be, to communicate each to other, in things 
spiritual, and things temporal." 5 
Already, however, the churches had been increasing in number 
and it had been found by experience that of churches it is true no 
less than of individuals, that "no one liveth to himself." There are 
some matters which in themselves pertain to the individual church, 
but which react, directly or indirectly, upon more than the local 
body immediately involved. The Baptist churches were becoming 
conscious, moreover, of their relations to the larger purpose for 
which they existed and recognized that if they were to become 
effective in the social order of their age, they must themselves find 
some method for the conservation of their mutual interests. A nec- 
essarv step was the adoption of some concerted plan for the settle- 
ment'of such differences as were already arising among the churches. 
The need of this was felt as early as 1677, when the chief amplifica- 
tion of the theory of inter-church relations was made in that line of 



6 Crosby, "English Baptists," Vol. I., App. III. Also in "Confessions of 
Faith," H. K. Society. 



EARLY PRINCIPLES OF FELLOWSHIP 17 

Confessions which starts in 1643-4 an d leads through various re- 
censions to the Philadelphia Confession of 1742. 
"Chap. XXVI. Of the Church. 6 
"7. To each of these (local) churches * * * 
he hath given all that power and authority, which is in 
any way needful for their carrying on that order in wor- 
ship and discipline, which he hath instituted for them 
to observe, with commands and rules, for the due and 
right exerting and executing of that power. 

"15. In cases of difficulties or differences, either in 
point of Doctrine, or Administration ; wherein either the 
Churches in general are concerned, or any one Church in 
their peace, union, and edification, or any member or 
members, of any Church are injured, in or by any pro- 
ceedings in censures not agreeable to truth and order: 
it is according to the mind of Christ, that many Churches 
holding communion together, do by their messengers 
meet to consider and give their advice in, or about that 
matter in difference, to be reported to all the Churches 
concerned ; howbeit these messengers assembled, are not 
entrusted with any Church-power properly so called ; or 
with any jurisdiction over the Churches themselves, to 
exercise any censures either over any Churches, or Per- 
sons : or to impose their determination on the Churches, 
or Officers." 
We note here a distinct advance over the earlier statements, 
which expressed merely the general principles of fellowship. The 
first paragraph quoted reaffirms the immediate relation of the indi- 
vidual church to Christ, from whom it receives its power and author- 
ity. For these it is not dependent upon other churches or upon the 
Church universal. There is, however, the recognition of the follow- 
ing facts and principles : — 

(1) There are matters of mutual concern among the churches. 

(2) The churches are under the obligation of mutual oversight. 

(3) Individual churches may err in their treatment of members. 

(4) Churches may meet by their messengers to give advice in 
matters of difference. This is virtually the recognition of the council 
as an institution, the language suggesting that it is already the cus- 
tom for such assemblies for counsel to be held. 

(5) The council may review the censures of members of indi- 
vidual churches. 

""Confession of Faith put forth by the Elders and Brethren of many 
Congregations of Christians (baptized upon Profession of their Faith) in 
London and the Country." 1677. In the Colgate Historical Collection. 



1 8 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

(6) Yet its decisions are not to be imposed upon the church 
or churches, but reported to them by way of advice. 

(7) The council has no "Church-power"; it is not the Church 
nor does it have authority over the churches or over their officers. 

The rights of independency were not always so carefully guarded 
as in this line of Confessions at which we have been looking. In 
the so-called "Orthodox Creed," for example, dated 1678, we find 
set forth virtually the theory of a presbytery. 7 

"XXXIX. Article. Of general Councils, or As- 
semblies. 

"General councils or assemblies, consisting of Bish- 
ops, Elders, and Brethren of the several churches of 
Christ, and being legally convened, and met together 
out of all the churches, and the churches appearing there 
by their representatives, make but one church, and have 
lawful right, and suffrage in this general meeting, or as- 
sembly, to act in the name of Christ; it being of divine 
authority, and is the best means under heaven to preserve 
unity, to prevent heresy, and superintendency among, or 
in any congregation whatsoever within its own limits, 
or jurisdiction. And to such a meeting or assembly, 
appeals ought to be made, in case any injustice be done, 
or heresy, and schism countenanced, in any particular 
congregation of Christ, and the decisive voice in such 
general assemblies is the major part, and such general 
assemblies have lawful power to hear, and determine, as 
also to excommunicate." 
This is a very strong statement of conciliar authority in marked 
contrast to the Confession of 1677. That denied to any assembly 
of messengers of the churches any "Church-power," while this rec- 
ognizes the messengers as representatives of the churches which 
are themselves considered as sitting together and forming one church 
of higher authority than the local church. To this appeals are to be 
made ; its responsibility for the preservation of unity, the prevention 
of heresy and the exercise of superintendency would apparently be 
its sufficient warrant to take the initiative. Its decisions would be 
authoritative, and its jurisdiction extended even to the extreme of 
excommunication. The explanation of the presbyterian character 
of this "Orthodox Confession," which came from the General Bap- 



7 "An Orthodox Creed, or A Protestant Confession of Faith, etc., etc., 
etc., being an Essay to unite and confirm all true Protestants in the Funda- 
mental Articles of the Christian Religion, against the Errors and Heresies 
of Rome." Hanserd Knollys Society's Collection of Confessions of Faith. 



EARLY PRINCIPLES OF FELLOWSHIP 19 

tists, is to be found in the irenic purpose set forth in the sub-title 
of the Confession itself. 7 To quote the historian of the General 
Baptists, "The evident design of the compilers of these articles ap- 
pears to have been to approximate as closely to the Calvinistic system 
as they could, without giving up their distinguishing tenets." 8 The 
significance of this Confession for our subject is two-fold; (i) it 
is probably the strongest statement by English Baptists of the mutual 
responsibilities of independent churches; (2) it endangers inde- 
pendency at certain points where American Baptists more care- 
fully safeguarded it. 

The "Orthodox Confession," however, is much less a guide to 
the actual theory of inter-church relations among the English Bap- 
tists than is the Confession of 1689, which comes in that long line 
already referred to as leading on this side of the ocean to the Phila- 
delphia Confession. In the mother-country, this Confession of 1689 
was considered representative. It was issued by a general assembly 
of delegates from more than a hundred congregations, "assembled 
together to consult of proper ways and means to advance the glory 
of God, and the well-being of the churches." The Assembly dis- 
claimed "all manner of superiority, or superintendency over the 
churches," and all "authority or power to impose anything upon 
the faith or practice of any of the churches of Christ." Such being 
its attitude toward the question of inter-church relations, it found 
no need of making any changes on that subject in the statement of 
the Confession of 1677, which it inserted without any alteration. 9 

To turn briefly from the theory of their mutual relations, as at- 
tested in their Confessions, to the practice of the English Baptist 
churches, we find here also clear indications that they plainly recog- 
nized matters of common interest which could not safely be left to 
the sole decision of the local church. From the troublous times in 
which they were living, when to be known as a Baptist was to 
subject oneself to derision if not more perilous forms of persecution, 
the churches had little need of self-protection against deceivers 
within. The ultimate right of the local church to appoint its own 
minister could be exercised without reference to other churches. 
Thus as late as 1694, we have the case, cited by Ivimey, 10 of the 



8 Taylor, "Hist, of the General Baptists," Vol. 1, p. 360. An interesting 
statement of the ecclesiastical polity of the English General Baptist churches 
will be found in Robert Barclay's "Inner Life of the Religious Societies of the 
Commonwealth," pp. 354, 595. On page 352, he says : "These churches were 
independent churches co-operating in all matters connected with the ministry 
and the spread of the Gospel." 

9 "Confessions of Faith," H. K. Society. 

10 Joseph Ivimey, "A History of the English Baptists," Vol. 2, p. 174. 



20 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

church at Kensworth, in Hertfordshire, which that year at its yearly 
meeting "proceeded not only to elect, but to charge one of their 
number to break bread and administer ordinances." The person so 
elected was then "set apart to the pastoral employment by them- 
selves, without foreign aid or assistance." Yet there is already a 
denominational consciousness which demands that no church shall 
press its independency to the point of infringement upon the rights 
of others. For example, Ivimey, in speaking of an ordination in 
1667, remarks, "It appears probable that when they could conveni- 
ently, they invited the Elders of other churches to assist at the 
service, and to recognize the union, as has been, and still is, the 
practice of our churches." 11 While the absence of such representa- 
tives would not, in the mind of the seventeenth century Baptists, 
invalidate an ordination, we find, as we follow the churches well 
into the next century and beyond, that there is the distinct recogni- 
tion of the growing need of the protection of the ministerial office 
and some modification of the theoretic rights of the local church for 
the common weal. The similar process in America will receive 
our attention, so it will not be necessary to trace it further in Eng- 
land. 12 Our survey of the relation of the English Baptist churches 
to one another has been primarily to show what was likely to be the 
attitude of such English Baptists as came to America. Had they 
been nurtured in the mother-country in a fixed, rigid Independency, 
which subordinated all else to the absolute authority of the local 
church, doubtless they would have at once placed themselves in 
opposition to any institution which could in any way encroach upon 
that authority. Our study has shown us, however, that the princi- 
ple of fellowship, with the obligations springing therefrom, was 
well recognized by the English Baptists, who upon coming to Amer- 
ica would be willing to see the same principle embodied in the polity 
of the Baptist churches of the New World. 

2. In America. 
The first Baptist church in America was organized in Providence, 
R. L, in 1639. Next in order came the church in Newport, probably 
organized in 1644, without action, however, on the part of the Provi- 

11 Ibid. P. 194. 

12 The following quotation from the records of the church at Collier's 
Rents, Southwark (quoted in Baptist Annual Register, 1798) is typical of the 
eighteenth century practice. "Jan. 30, 1744. John Rogers . . . was set 
apart to the work and office of pastor, by the church, with fasting and 
prayer. Item. Agreed to invite the following ministers and messengers of 
churches to assist and behold our faith and order in the gospel, in the more 
public ratification of this day's work." Six ministers are named and two 
messengers from each of three churches. 



EARLY PRINCIPLES OF FELLOWSHIP 2 1 

dence church. To pass by the Baptists of Seekonk, (Rehoboth), 
whose separate organization is questionable, we find churches form- 
ing in the following order in New England: — Swansea, (organ- 
ized in Wales in 1649), I( ^3 5 Boston, (Charlestown), 1665; New- 
bury, 1682 ; Kittery, Maine, 1682. The first two churches mentioned 
were organized independently, although according to Backus, John 
Miles, the pastor of the former, "often visited and labored with his 
brethren of Boston in the time of their sufferings." The Newbury 
church, however, was not wholly independent in its origin according 
to the records of the First Baptist Church of Boston, which read : — 13 
"Agreed uppon at a church meeting that we the 

Church at Boston have assented unto the setleing of the 

church at Newberry." 

The case of the Kittery church is of much greater interest and 
importance. In 1681, William Screven and Humphrey Church wood 
of that place had been baptized and united with the Boston church, 
which soon after, at the request of several of its members resident 
in Kittery, granted Screven a license to preach. A few months 
later, in September, 1682, the Kittery Baptists forwarded to the 
Boston church the request that they be set off as a separate church. 
Messengers were sent and the organization of the Kittery Baptists 
was declared to be "A Church of Christ." This meeting of the 
messengers from Boston with the Kittery Baptists has been called a 
council, and if it was that, it was apparently the first Baptist council 
to be held in America. It is necessary for us to turn to the records 
of the Boston church, upon which we are dependent for our infor- 
mation. 14 

"Upon serious & Solemn Consideration of the Church 
About A motion or Request made by severall members 
that lived att Kittery, yt they might become A Church 
& that they might p — ceed therein provided they were 
such as should be Approved for such A Foundacon work, 
the Church gave there grant and att ye time Appointed 
did send severall messengers to make yt strict Inquiry 
& Examinason as they ought in such A case who att 
there Returne brought ye Coppys here inserted 26th of 
7mo 1682. 

"The Church of Christ att Boston yt is baptized upon 
profession of faith haveing taken into serious considera- 
tion ye Request of our Brethren att Kittery Relating to 
there being A Church by themselves yt soe they might 

13 Wood, N. E— "Hist, of the First Bap. Ch. of Boston," p. 178. 

14 Wood, "Hist, of First Bap. Ch. of Boston," p. 180. 



22 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

In joy the precious ordinances of Christ which by re .son 
of distance of habitason they butt seldome could in joy 
have therefore thought meet to make Choice of us whose 
names are undewritten as Messengers to Assist them in 
ye same and coming up to them we have found them A 
Competent Number and in ye same faith with us for 
upon carefull examination of them in matters of Doctrine 
& practise & soe finding one with us by there (we hope) 
Conshiencous Acknowledgmtt of ye Confession of faith 
putt forth by ye Elders & Brethren of ye Churches in 
London and ye Contry in England in ye year 1682. 

"And they haveing given themselves up to ye lord & 
too one Another in A Solemn Covenant to walk as said 
Covenant may Express & alsoe haveing Chosen theire 
officers whome they with us have Appointed & ordained, 
we doe therefore in ye name of ye lord Jesus & by the 
Appointmtt of his Church deliver them to be A Church 
in ye faith and order of ye Gospel, 
signed by us in ye name 
of ve Church the 25 of 7mo 1682. 

"ISAACK HULL 
"THOMAS SKINNER 
"PHILLIPP SQUIRE." 
This record makes no specific mention of the organization of the 
meeting of the Boston messengers with the Kittery Baptists. It 
was evidently conducted with order and decorum, however, so the 
matter of formal organization is unimportant. A careful reading 
of our source of information will show several reasons why the 
meeting cannot be called strictly a council. To begin with, the 
matter is one within the Boston church itself, for the "Request" is 
made by some of its own members, and is made of that church only. 
The messengers were practically a committee of the church, with 
power to examine into the situation at Kittery and, if they should 
find this satisfactory, to act for the church which had already given 
its consent conditional upon the approval of this committee. This 
seems to be involved in the action of the church when it "gave there 
grant" and sent the "severall messengers to make yt strict Inquiry 
& Examinason," as well as in the action of the messengers who 
"doe * * * in ye name of ye lord Jesus & by the Appointmtt 
of his Church deliver them to be A Church of Christ." We have 
here simply a church setting off a part of its members as a separate 
church. The statement concerning the choice, appointment and 
ordination of the church officers is a little ambiguous as to the 
precise function of the Boston messengers in the proceedings. Prob- 



EARLY PRINCIPLES OF FELLOWSHIP 23 

ably no more is involved than their approval of the choice and their 
participation in the formal setting apart of the officers chosen. 

The action of the Kittery Baptists is significant, however, as an 
indication of the spirit of fellowship. When the Boston church 
was organized, its constituent members came in part, at least, from 
churches in England, but it was not thought necessary for the ap- 
proval of the home churches to be secured for the organization of a 
church three thousand miles away. It would have been possible 
for the Kittery Baptists to organize themselves into a church without 
reference to the church of which all or most of them were members. 
Yet they rightly felt that they were under obligations, which rested 
on the principles of fellowship, to receive the sanction of the Boston 
church in the constitution of a Baptist church in Kittery. 

Up to about the time of the Great Awakening, 1740, there had 
been organized in New England not many more than twenty Baptist 
churches ; aside from four in Connecticut and that in Kittery, which 
had early removed to South Carolina, they were about evenlv divided 
between Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Information as to the 
early history of these churches is very meagre, and the present 
writer has been unable to find any evidence of any formal relation 
between them. 

In 1732, when thirty members of the First Baptist Church of 
Swansea withdrew to form a church in Rehoboth, the elders and 
messengers of the former church were sent to assist in the installa- 
tion of John Comer as pastor of the new church ; but this case 
apparently falls into the same class with the instance at Kittery 
just referred to. 15 

Up to the time of the Great Awakening, the Baptists were rela- 
tively so insignificant in New England outside of Rhode Island that 
there would be little occasion for inter-church action among them. 
With the churches of the so-called "standing order" in Massachu- 
setts and Connecticut, however, the question of inter-church relation 
was already one of pressing importance. Differing as the Baptists 
did from the Congregationalists both on the subjects and the mode 
of baptism, and also on the relation of the church and state, their 
principles of the relation of the local churches to one another were 
not fundamentally different. The Baptists were not wholly ignorant 
of the writings of such men as John Cotton and Increase Mather, 16 



15 Newman, "Hist, of the Baptist Churches," p. 198. 

16 Cf. Mather, "The First Principles of New England Concerning the Sub- 
ject of Baptisme and Communion of Churches." Cambridge, 1675. In this he 
quotes (p. 28 sq.) from Cotton's "Book of the Keyes," ten Propositions bear- 
ing upon inter-church relations, including the function of councils. 



24 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

who from their observation of the actual workings of Congrega- 
tionalism in church polity were able to discuss the principles under- 
lying inter-church relations. In his lecture on "Ecclesiastical Coun- 
cils," 17 Dr. Dexter refers to about twenty Congregational councils 
which were held in New England in the seventeenth century, and 
to at least ten more before the Great Awakening. As these councils 
were always of a quasi public nature, (Dexter citing two cases 
where the town itself called the council), the institution was not 
wholly unfamiliar to the Baptists of New England probably some 
decades before they had any occasion to introduce it among their 
own churches. 

Before the Great Awakening, Baptist churches outside of New 
England were scarcely to be found in sufficiently close proximity 
to one another to raise the question of inter-church relations except 
in the vicinity of Philadelphia. There the church at Pennepek first 
demands our attention. Here was a group of Baptist families from 
Wales, with some others, who in 1688 organized themselves into a 
church, under the lead of Elias Keach. Although Keach had been 
baptized and ordained by Elder Dungan of the Cold Spring Church, 
that church apparently had no part in the organization or recognition 
of the new body. The familiar incident of Reach's early imposture 
and conversion must have taught the need of safeguarding the 
ministry. 18 The Pennepek Church became a centre of evangelistic 
effort, the result being many baptisms in the surrounding region. 
These converts continued for some time as members of the Pennepek 
Church, their spiritual interests being cared for through frequent 
preaching services in various convenient localities and by quarterly 
meetings held in rotation at Burlington, Cohansey, Chester and 
Philadelphia, at which the Lord's Supper was celebrated. This 
system delayed both the organization of separate churches and con- 
sequently questions of inter-church relations which otherwise would 
doubtless have arisen. Although the First Church in Philadelphia 
was formed in 1698, its independence from the Pennepek Church 
was not recognized in any formal way till 1746. Some churches 
had been formed in New Jersey, as at Middletown, 1688, Piscataqua, 
1689, an d Cohansey, 1691. The Welsh Tract church, which had 
been organized in Wales, "by the advice and counsel of the churches 
they came from," 19 and had come over to Pennsylvania in a body 
in 1701, also should be mentioned. Wliile these churches were in 
general quite active, there seem to have been at first no formal rela- 
tions among them. The informal general or quarterly meetings, to 



17 "Congregationalism," Lecture X. 

"Vedder, "Baptists in the Middle States," p. 59- 

"Minutes of the Phil. Bap. Assoc., 1707-1807, p. 15. 



EARLY PRINCIPLES OF FELLOWSHIP 25 

which reference has been made, continued even after some of the 
local companies of Baptists hitherto connected with the Pennepek 
church had been organized into churches. 

The first definite manifestation of formal fellowship among 
the Baptist churches of America was the organization of the Phila- 
delphia Association in 1707. The original purposes of this epoch- 
making step in American Baptist polity, according to the statement 
in the records of the Pennepek church, were as follows : — 20 

(1) To consult about deficiencies in the churches and 

to set them in order. 

(2) To protect the churches from unworthy members 

and ministers. 

(3) To provide for the settlement of grievances be- 

tween a church member and his church. 

Whether a Constitution was adopted at this time is doubtful. 
The language of the Pennepek records does not safeguard the au- 
tonomy of the local church as did the Association itself later. To 
carry out the second purpose, it was agreed, (to use the language 
of the record), — 

"That a person that is a stranger, that has neither 
letter of recommendation, nor is known to be a person 
gifted, and of good conversation, shall not be admitted 
to preach, nor be entertained as a member in any of the 
baptized congregations in communion with each other." 

It may be argued that the meeting had no authority to legislate 
for the churches, but as five of these appoint delegates in accordance 
with the plan adopted by the meeting, they probably also were 
guided by this "agreement" as to church members and preachers. 
The principle involved in the third purpose of the Association would 
have aroused intense opposition not much later. Here also it will be 
necessary to quote the language of the Pennepek record. 21 

"It was also concluded, that if any difference shall 
happen between any member and the church he belongs 
unto, and they cannot agree, then the person so grieved 



20 Newman, "Hist of the Bap. Churches," p. 211. The records of the 
Philadelphia Association begin with 1760; before that time, we are dependent 
chiefly upon "An Association Book, containing a Brief Account of the Be- 
ginning and Progress of the Churches . . . commonly called Baptists, in 
Pennsylvania and the Jerseys ; now annually associating at Philadelphia ; 
. . . Collected pursuant to an order of the Association, . . . 1749." This is to 
be found in the "Minutes of the Phil. Bap. Assoc, 1707-1807." 

21 Newman, p. 211. 



26 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

may, at the general meeting, appeal to the brethren of the 
several congregations, and with such as they shall nom- 
inate, to decide the difference; that the church and the 
person so grieved do fully acquiesce in their determina- 
tion." 
Here is distinctly stated the right of an aggrieved member of a 
local church to appeal to the Association, which itself or through a 
committee of its own appointment shall decide the case ; the person 
so appealing thereby agrees to acquiesce in the verdict of this court 
of appeal, while the church, by its participation in the Association, 
has already assented to acquiescence, not in this case alone, but in all 
cases appealed by its m.embers. Such an agreement shows either a 
high sense of the mutual obligations of churches to each other, or 
else an indifference to the principles of independency in the presence 
of practical benefits to be derived from greater centralization. The 
latter is more likely the true explanation of the situation. But in 
either case, the idea of the interdependence of the churches has 
somewhat suddenly crystallized into visible, tangible form, — into an 
institution, the Association. 



CHAPTER III. 

THE ENTRANCE OF THE COUNCIL AS A RECOGNIZED INSTITUTION IN 

BAPTIST POLITY. 

Although the Philadelphia Association had as one of its specific 
functions the decision of any differences between aggrieved members 
and their church, when the first opportunity came for one of the 
churches to profit by this new court of appeal, strangely enough it 
did not do so, but adopted another method of deciding the case in 
controversy. We refer to an incident connected with the Baptist 
church of Middletown. N. J., to whose action in 1712 Morgan Ed- 
wards refers in his "Materials" as follows : — 1 

"But in the year 171 1, a variance arose in the church, 
in so much that one party excommunicated the other ; 
and imposed silence on two gifted brothers that preached 
to them, viz., John Bray and John Okison. Weaned 
with their situation, they agreed to refer matters to a 
council congregated from neighbouring churches ; the 
council met May 25, 1712; it consisted of rev. mess. 
Timothy Brooks of Cohansey; Abel Morgan and Joseph 
Wood, of Pennepek; and Elisha Thomas, of Welshtract, 
with six elders, viz., Nicholas Johnson, James James, 
Griffith Miles, Edward Church, William Bettridge, and 
John Manners. Their advice was 

"(1) 'To bury their proceedings in oblivion, and 
erase the records of them' ; accordingly four leaves are 
torn out of the church book. 

"(2) 'To continue the silence imposed on John 
Bray and John Okison the preceding year' ; one would 
think by this that those two brethren were the cause of 
the disturbance. 

"(3) 'To sign a covenant relative to their future 
conduct' ; accordingly 42 did sign, and 26 refused ; never- 
theless most of the non-signers came in afterwards ; but 
the first 42 were declared to be the church that should be 
owned by sister churches. 



1 Materials towards a Historv of the Baptists in Jersey." Phil. 1792. 
P- 14. 



27 



28 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

"(4) 'That rev. mess. Abel Morgan (seni.) and 
John Burrows should supply the pulpit till the next yearly 
meeting. 

"(5) 'That the members should keep their places 
and not wander to other societies.' " 

It is unfortunate that we do not possess a more detailed account 
of this, probably the first Baptist council, strictly so called, to be 
held in America. Why the case was not referred to the Association 
of which all the churches immediately concerned were constituent 
members, we do not know ; we can only say that it was apparently 
not from any opposition to the Association itself. Of greater inter- 
est is the question as to how this church came to call a council at 
all to settle its internal troubles. As already stated, the Congrega- 
tionalists of New England had adopted the council, and it had also 
some recognition in the polity of the English Baptist churches. As 
Middle Jersey contained many immigrants from New England and 
also from England and Wales, including "several able men, ministers 
and elders, * * * and some that had been ruling elders in the 
churches they came from — all of them men long concerned in the 
affairs of churches and associations in their own countries," 2 we may 
assume that the Baptists of Philadelphia and vicinity were not wholly 
ignorant of the council. In this particular case at Middletown, it is 
very possible that it was thought wiser not to delay the settlement 
of the strife until the Association should meet. So the appeal was 
made directly to several of the churches to nominate some of their 
brethren who should consider the case and decide it, in the same 
way as would a committee appointed through the Philadelphia As- 
sociation. If, as seems likely, the "yearly meeting" referred to in 
the fourth article of advice is that of the Association, which would 
be an opportune time to secure a permanent pulpit supply, there 
would be less likelihood that the council would be charged with in- 
truding upon the sphere of the Association. 

While there is nothing stated in the record about the formal 
organization of this council, it is referred to specifically as a council 
in Edwards' narrative; moreover, the definite manner in which the 
decision of the council is given, with its evident firm grasp of the 
situation, implies not only that it proceeded in an orderly manner, 
but that it considered itself as a distinct body in a sense that the dele- 
gates to Kittery in 1682 had not thought of themselves as distinct 
from the church at Boston which they represented. 

The following month some Baptists at Cape May Court House, 
New Jersey, asked the Cohansey church to assist them in the organ- 



Quoted by Newman, "Hist, of the Bap. Churches," p. 212. 



THE ENTRANCE OF THE COUNC L 29 

ization of a church at that place. In response to this invitation, the 
pastor, Rev. Timothy Brooks, who had participated in the council 
at Middletown, and two deacons were sent to advise with them and 
to assist in the constitution of the church. On June 24, 171 2, the 
three messengers signed the following article : — 3 

"In as much as you have covenanted together to walk 
in church fellowship according to Gospel institution ; we 
do in the presence of God declare you to be a church of 
Jesus Christ ; * * * We subscribe ourselves * * * 
on behalf of the Cohansey Church." 
This is a little different from the Kittery case, for the Cape May 
Baptists do not appear to have been members of the Cohansey 
Church. Whether this can be properly classed as a council is a 
little uncertain, for these messengers may have considered them- 
selves merely a committee of the Cohansey Church ; yet their relation 
to the Cape May church is precisely that of a council, as is the work 
which they perform. 

When the Philadelphia Association met this same year, (1712), 
there came before it the first case in which the machinery of the 
Association was used for the settlement of a difficulty within one 
of its constituent churches, in accordance with the original plan of 
its organization. The trouble centred about Thomas Selby, the 
pastor of the Philadelphia-Pennepek church, which was in a seri- 
ously distraught condition. The Association did not take the initi- 
ative, for the case was brought before it by application, though by 
which party the record does not state. A committee was then 
appointed by the Association from among its own members, to hear 
and determine the matter. Before proceeding, however, the com- 
mittee secured the consent of both parties to their consideration of 
the case. After hearing the evidence, they brought in their deci- 
sion, which was against Selby ; they advised that he be "discharged 
from any further service in the work of the ministry," though also 
that he be paid in full. 

The records of the Philadelphia Association for the next sixty 
years of its history are defective, but so far as they are preserved, 
they do not contain any other instance in these early formative years 
when the Association, either directly or through a committee, sat 
as a court of appeal upon a case of dissension within a church. In 
1734, the Association advised the church at Great Valley to divide, 
but in case "they happen to jar or disagree, or any persons be dis- 
satisfied, * * * that in such cases they shall call help from 
neighboring churches." There can be no doubt that this is a direct 



i ^. 



Hires, A. J., "Hist. Sketch of the 1st Cape May Bap. Church. 



30 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

reference to a council as distinct from the Association, and from this 
time on, the rise and development of the council are to be traced 
both in its actual use as an institution for practical purposes in 
church polity and in the attempt of Associations to differentiate be- 
tween their own legitimate functions and those which may be more 
wisely entrusted to a council of the churches. 

We have already noticed the reason, lying in the small number 
of churches and their remoteness, in many cases, from one another, 
why there would be little occasion for councils among the Baptists 
before their rapid increase following the Great Awakening. In 
Massachusetts, however, where the churches of the standing order 
had already introduced the institution, being from the fact of their 
Establishment constrained to a formal orderliness, it was only 
natural that the most conspicuous Baptist church, that in Boston, 
should feel under a similar constraint that it might free itself from 
the charge of disorderliness which usually hangs over Dissent. Dif- 
fering as they did from the Congregational churches of Boston on 
the doctrine of baptism, the Baptists yet desired to receive Christian 
recognition from those with whose other fundamental principles 
they were in general accord. So in 1718, when they had decided to 
set apart Elisha Callender, the son of their pastor, to the work of the 
ministry, they sent the following letter "to Dr Mather & Mr Webb 
to be communicated to their Churches."* 

"Honored & Beloved in the Lord 

"Considering- that there ought to be a holy fellowship 
maintained among godly Christians and that it is a Duty 
for us to Receive one another as Christ also Receives us 
to the glory of god notwithstanding some Differing per- 
suasions in matters of Doubtfull Disputations, and al- 
though we have not so great Latitude as to the Subject 
of Baptism as the Churches in New England generally 
have, notwithstanding as to fundamentall principles in 
your Doctrine of Christ both as to the faith & order of 
the Gospell, we Concur with them being also satisfied 
that particular Churches have power from Christ to 
Choose their own Pastors & that Elders ought to' be or- 
dained in Every Church & haveing Chosen our well be- 
loved Brother Elisha Callender to be our pastor we 
Intreat you to send your Elders & Messengers to give 
us the Right hand of fellowship in his ordination. 

"In ye name of ye Church." 



4 Wood, Hist, of First Bap. Ch., Boston, p. 201. 



THE ENTRANCE OF THE COUNCIL 3 1 

This invitation was accepted by the two churches, which sent 
their pastors and messengers to assist in the ordination. To be sure, 
here also we lack definite information as to what took place, espe- 
cially as to whether there was any preliminary examination of the 
candidate by these delegates, or if there was only the public service. 
If the latter was the case, this can hardly be called a council. As 
only Congregational churches were invited, there is some doubt as 
to whether the matter of the ordination of Callender would be sub- 
mitted to them ; they were invited to give the Baptists "the Right 
hand of fellowship in his ordination." 

Twenty years later, upon the death of Mr. Callender, the church 
chose Jeremiah Condy as its pastor and invited the Cambridge and 
two Boston churches, — these three being Congregational, — and the 
Newport Baptist church to send their pastors and messengers to 
assist in his ordination. The letter addressed to the Cambridge 
church which is preserved in the records of the Boston church, is 
probably the earliest extant copy of a formal letter missive sent by 
an American Baptist church asking for a council, and so is entitled 
to a place here. 5 

"Boston January 24, 1738. To the Church of Christ 
in Cambridge under the pastoral care of Revd Mr Na- 
thanael Appleton. 

"Hond & beloved in the Lord. 

"The Church of Christ in Boston lately under the 
care of the Revd Mr Elisha Callender deceased, having 
unanimously made choice of Mr Jeremiah Condy to take 
upon him the pastoral charge of this Church, of which 
Mr Condy has declared his acceptance, — This is there- 
fore. Hond & beloved Brn to request of you to send 
your Revd Elder & Messengers to assist at ye ordination 
of our Said Elected Pastor on the Second Wednesday in 
February next — A request of the like tenoar with this 
we have made to the Churches in Boston under ye care of 
ye Revd Messrs Welsted & Gray, and Mr Wm Hooper 
& to ye Church in Newport under ye care of the Revd 
Mr John Callender, Hond & Beloved. We heartily 
wish you all spiritual blessing in Christ Jesus the glori- 



Wood, Hist, of First Bap. Ch., Boston, p. 234. 



32 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

ous head of the Church. We are in behalf and by order 
of the Church your affectionate Brethren in the Gospel 

"SHEM DROWNE DEACON, 

"JOHN CALLENDER, 

"JAMES BOUND, 

"BENJ LANDON, 

"JOHN PROCTOR." 

There is a noticeable difference in tone between this letter and 
the letter sent in 1718, which was somewhat halting and apologetic, 
chiefly because it was uncertain what reception it would have from 
the two churches to which, through their pastors, it was addressed. 
The earlier letter, moreover, is not so formal as is the later one, 
which is expressed more in the phraseology of the letter missive 
technically so called. The messengers, except Mr. Welsted, who 
was sick at the time, came together on February 14, 1738, and or- 
ganized by choosing Rev. Mr. Appleton as Moderator. This was 
"at the house of Brother Skinner Russell," where they "having 
agreed upon the public proceedings of the day adjourned to the 
meeting-house, when the ordination was carried out." Here we 
have an organized council, though we do not have the definite in- 
formation that they subjected Mr. Condy to any preliminary exam- 
ination; the record only informs us that they "agreed upon the 
public proceedings of the day" ; that is, they arranged the public 
service, in which Mr. Gray began with prayer, Mr. Callender 
preached the sermon, Mr. Appleton gave the charge and Mr. Hooper 
the right hand of fellowship. 6 

In 1-727, a Baptist movement had started in Springfield, Mass. 
About thirty of the people who were interested signed a formal 
letter which they sent to the Boston church, of which some of them 
were members, asking that the pastor, Mr. Callender, be sent to 
advise and instruct them. The invitation met with a hearty response, 
the pastor and three brethren being sent at the expense of the church, 
while any other brethren of the church who might attend were also 
authorized to appear "in the name of ye Church." As a result of 
this visit, eleven persons were baptized on July 23, and during 
another visit, in September of the next year, six more were baptized. 
These all were considered members of the Boston church. In 1740, 
the Springfield Baptists wrote to the Boston church asking that 
they might be organized as a separate church, and that the pastor 
and messengers might be sent to assist them in the ordination of 
Edward Upham, whom they had unanimously chosen as their pastor. 



Wood, p. 235. 



THE ENTRANCE OF THE COUNCIL 33 

The Baptist churches in Rehoboth, Mass., New London, Conn., and 
Newport, R. I., were also asked to meet in the council, but no Con- 
gregational church was invited. This, then, would appear to be the 
first strictly Baptist council to be held in New England. Apparently 
the Rehoboth and New London churches did not send delegates. 
The proceedings of the council as preserved in the records of the 
Boston church were as follows : — 7 

"Springfield Oct 14. 1740 at the house of Mr Lam- 
berton Cooper the Church of Boston and the Church of 
Newport under the pastoral care of Mr John Callender, 
being met by their Elders and messengers, and formed 
into a Council, of which Mr John Callender was chosen 
moderator, after Solemn prayer for the divine blessing 
on the important affair going to be transacted, the re- 
quest of the Brethren of the Baptist denomination resi- 
dent in and about Springfield to the church in Boston 
requesting their dismission for ye end aforesaid was read, 
and an attested Copy of the Vote of the church in Bos- 
ton requesting yr dismission was produced — upon which 
the following persons appeared and Signified their desire 
to be dismissed for ye purpose above mentioned, namely/' 
(Here follow fifteen names.). 
The public services of recognition were held the following day, 
when, also, Mr. Upham was ordained as pastor of the Springfield 
church. 

The First Church of Boston called its third council in December, 
1764, when letters were sent to three of the four Congregational 
churches of that city requesting that they send their ''Revd Elders 
& such other Delegates'' as they should think proper to sit in council 
concerning the installation of the Rev. Samuel Stillman as pastor 
of the church. 8 No Baptist churches were invited, probably in part 
because the First Church had been at odds with many of the other 
Baptist churches of New England. Naturally the Second Baptist 
Church, although located less than a block away, was not invited to 
send delegates, for a two-fold reason. In the first place Mr. Still- 
man was called away from the Second Church where he had been 
associate pastor. Moreover, the Second Church had split off from 
the First in 1743, being originally composed of members of the 
latter church who had accused the pastor, Mr. Condy, of preaching 
Arminian doctrines. After being suspended from communion, they 
had organized themselves as an independent church. They did not 



Wood, p. 239. 

A copy of the letter will be found in Wood, p. 248. 



34 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

seek immediate recognition by the First or other Baptist churches, 
but when, two months later, they selected one of their number, Eph- 
raim Bound, as their pastor, they desired to have the assistance of 
other Baptist churches. As they wished to make sure of a soundly 
Calvinistic council, it was 

"unanimously agreed that Elder Wightman of Groton 
in Connecticut, Elder Green of Leicester, and Elder 
Moulton of Brimfield, be sent or wrote to, to assist with 
their respective messengers at the time and place afore- 
said. (Greenwich, R. I., the first Wednesday in Septem- 
ber.) N. B. The said Elders Wightman, Green and 
Moulton, we apprehend to be sound, clear, and zealously 
affected to the doctrines of free and sovereign grace, and 
absolutely averse to the Pelagian and Armiman 
tenets." 9 

Greenwich, Rhode Island, was selected as the place of meeting 
instead of Boston, on account of Elder Wightman, who was ad- 
vanced in years ; but the council was finally held at Warwick, Rhode 
Island. The language of the record shows that not only the min- 
isters, but messengers of their churches were invited to attend upon 
the ordination. 

The New Light movement, arising from the Great Awakening, 
was disturbing not only to the churches of the standing order in 
New England, but to the Baptist churches as well, although on the 
whole, the Baptist cause profited greatly by it. In 1750, an Elder 
Sprague had gone to Exeter, R. L, where he had organized a 
Baptist church, most of its members being favorable to the New 
Light ideas. On May 23, 1753, representatives of some twenty-five 
New Light churches met with the Exeter church to consider the 
terms' of fellowship and communion, — a second similar council being 
held at the same place the following year. 10 These gatherings per- 
haps belong more properly to the history of Congregational councils ; 
but as the Exeter church was avowedly a Baptist church, and some of 
the other New Light churches were composed of both Baptists and 
Pedobaptists, and moveover as Elder Sprague himself, a staunch 



9 Church Record, quoted in "Hist, of the Second Baptist Church," in 
Christian Watchman, April 15, 1836. 

10 The council of 1753 appointed Elder Sprague and three other Elders 
to go to Middleborough, Mass., to sit in council with the New Light church 
there, of which Isaac Backus was pastor and which was in a disturbed con- 
dition over the question of baptism. In 1756, Backus organized a Baptized 
Church at Middleborough and from that time is an important factor in the 
denominational life. The history of the Exeter church is to be found in the 
Narragansett Historical Register, Vol. 2, p. 3 sq. 



THE ENTRANCE OF THE COUNCIL 35 

Baptist, was active in both meetings, they may be mentioned as 
showing a point of contact between the two denominations in the 
development of the council. The decisions of the two councils were 
favorable to open communion, with which the Exeter church con- 
curred. Mr. Sprague, however, was a believer in restricted com- 
munion, and so found himself out of harmony with his flock. In 
1757 he had withdrawn from fellowship with the church, although 
the pastoral relation had not been formally severed. A council met 
in July of that year, — presumably of New Light churches, — and 
another one in November, which advised the church to withdraw 
from its pastor, which it did. The Exeter church, during this 
period, was in closer relation to the New Light Congregationalists 
than it was to the Baptists, but later it adopted restricted communion. 

While we might continue to trace the individual councils which 
were held with increasing frequency as the churches grew in num- 
ber and their fraternal relations became closer, we have perhaps 
followed sufficiently far the process of the introduction of the 
council as an institution to meet in a practical way certain situations 
in which some of the local churches found themselves. These 
councils at which we have been looking were called by the churches, 
not in accord with any well-defined precedents of denominational 
usage, for they did not have these for their guidance, but as 
practical agencies for securing what they wished to accomplish 
through them. As has already been suggested, some of the Baptists 
may have been cognizant of the customs of the English Baptists ; 
more probably, the American Baptists simply profited by the experi- 
ences of the Congregational churches, which, earlier than them- 
selves, were forced to meet the problems of inter-church relations. 

With the organization of the Philadelphia Association, there 
came the opportunity for the Baptists to develop more rapidly a con- 
sistent system of church polity, and this opportunity was enlarged 
as other associations were formed. Of these, the Warren Associa- 
tion w T as next to its prototype in importance. This was partly 
because of the general influence of New England. More specifically, 
the Baptist leaders in New England, who guided the Warren Asso- 
ciation between many a Scylla and Charybdis as new problems of 
great moment confronted the churches, were men of strong intellect, 
whose opinions were respected and their counsels potent whereso- 
ever they reached. We will now turn to some of these Associations 
to see what evidence there is in their actions of what we may call the 
denominational recognition of the council as a legitimate part of 
Baptist polity. 

It was very natural that the churches should find in the annual 
meetings of the Associations an opportunity for obtaining informa- 



36 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

tion and advice on various matters both of doctrine and polity as 
questions concerning these arose in the early churches. We have 
already noted that in 1734, the Philadelphia Association had sug- 
gested the advisability of holding a council in case of dissension in 
a local church. It became the custom for churches to address 
"Queries" to their Association, which, after discussion and possible 
reference to a committee for more careful deliberation, were an- 
swered, both "Query" and "Answer" often appearing in the records 
of the Association. Although the decisions of the Associations were 
considered as advisory only, yet they were recognized as the thought- 
ful and deliberate opinion of representative Baptists, and so were 
of great influence in shaping the denominational traditions. Some- 
times the matter suggested by a "Query" was of sufficient import- 
ance to become the topic for the "Circular Letter" which it was the 
custom for many of the Associations to address each year to their 
constituent churches. 

In the first half-century of the history of the Philadelphia Asso- 
ciation, it frequently performed functions which to-day are more 
regularly exercised by councils. In 1745, for example, at the 
request of the church at Bethlehem, two of the "reverend brethren" 
of the Association were sent to that town to assist at the ordination 
of a minister. A few days later, they were "to be at Cranberry, in 
order to settle the members there in church order." In 1752, the 
church at Opocken, Virginia, applied to the Philadelphia Associa- 
tion for assistance, "some difficulty subsisting between the church 
and their minister." Four years later, John Davis was ordained at 
the meeting of the Association, which acted virtually as a council. 
In 1781, after a council of ministers had decided a controversy 
between the First Baptist Church of Philadelphia and its minister, 
Rev. Elhanan Winchester, against the latter, the case was carried 
to the Association, which appointed a committee to consider it. 
This committee made its report, confirming the earlier decision of 
the council of ministers, to the Association, which unanimously 
approved it. This mode of procedure on the part of the Association 
is interesting, as it was practically a return to the method adopted 
in the original plan of its organization in 1707. 

In the South, too, the Baptists made use of the Association both 
for advice and for denominational recognition and approval. Thus 
in 1787, the Fishing Creek Church wrote to the Georgia Association 
"as to an advisory council," — to quote the language of the letter. 
This phrase implies that the Georgia Baptists already looked upon 
the council as a recognized institution. The previous year, this 
Association had answered queries submitted to it as to the power of 
the churches to ordain and to silence ministers, and at later sessions, 



THE ENTRANCE OF THE COUNCIL 37 

it frequently expressed its opinion on matters of polity. Similar 
questions are to be found in the records of the Charleston and other 
southern Associations, to some of which it will be necessary later 
to refer. 

In New England, as already stated, the organization of the 
Warren Association in 1767 was an important step in the develop- 
ment of Baptist polity, for this Association not only from time to 
time expressed opinion as to what was "regular" in church practice, 
but also itself established precedents. While in many matters it 
could profit by the experiences of the Congregational churches, in 
many others it must be a pioneer and work out its own ecclesiastical 
principles and the methods of applying them. In 1776, the Associa- 
tion found itself confronted by a situation peculiarly difficult. The 
"brethren from Attleboro objected against sitting with those from 
Bellingham, because of a breach that had taken place betwixt those 
churches." A council had already been held in regard to the contro- 
versy ; of that council we know only that it failed to secure a 
reconciliation. For the Association to ignore the controversy which 
the Attleboro brethren had thus brought to its attention would be 
virtually to decide against them ; while to hear the case would appar- 
ently transform the Association into a court of appeal, a danger to 
the independency of the local church which some of the opponents of 
the Association thought constantly imminent. The action of the 
Association was eminently wise and conservative. After careful 
deliberation, having secured the consent of the parties concerned, 
a committee was appointed to hear the case at Wrentham, — a town 
lying between Attleboro and Bellingham, — to "do their utmost to 
settle the controversy between these churches; and to make report 
of the effects of their labours" at the next annual meeting of the 
Association. This action was similar in principle to the primitive 
method of the Philadelphia Association. The Warren Association, 
however, did not wish its action to be interpreted as in any sense 
hostile to the council as now a more regular agent in the recon- 
ciliation of churches which were in controversy. So the members of 
the council which had previously heard the case were invited to 
attend the new hearing. In 1777, the committee was able to report 
to the Association the success of their efforts, by which a satisfactory 
settlement of the trouble between the two churches was reached. 

We have selected this incident not as an isolated case, but be- 
cause it is a typical illustration of the attitude of the Associations 
toward the council. We have already noted several instances where 
an Association exercised the functions which to-day would belong 
to a council. As the churches were constantly turning to their 
Associations for advice concerning questions of polity, and it is 



3§ BAPTIST COUNCILS IN* AMERICA 

supposed to be the natural tendency of institutions to arrogate to 
themselves as much power and influence as possible, why did not the 
Association crowd out the council as superfluous? The answer is 
partly involved in the broader problem of the self-limitation in 
general of the Association which is outside our immediate subject. 
We can, however, point out a few instances of Associational action 
which illustrate the fact that the Association was never consciously 
hostile to the council, but on the contrary, sought to establish it more 
generally among the churches and make its place in Baptist polity 
more secure. 

In 1756, the Charleston Association of South Carolina had an- 
swered a Query concerning the finality of the decision of a majority 
in a church by asserting, 

"No church or majority of a church has power to 
bind the conscience; If therefore the majority should 
introduce errors subversive of the peace of the church, 
and wound the consciences of the brethren, the minority 
may, after all proper methods to reclaim the rest by calm 
reasoning, by calling in the assistance of the other 
churches, and by referring the matter to the Association, 
should these prove ineffectual, be received as the church, 
and the majority disowned." 11 

This language is a little ambiguous; the phrase "should these 
prove ineffectual" may go with the preceding clause, which would 
make this a recognition of the Association as a court of appeal after 
the failure of a council to effect a reconciliation. More probably it is 
to be connected with the phrase, "may be received ;" that is, the ref- 
erence is to three possible modes of procedure open to an aggrieved 
minority, — to convince the majority "by calm reasoning" that the min- 
ority are in the right; or, failing in that, to carry the case to a 
council or to the Association. By either interpretation of the phrase, 
however, it is evident that the council was looked upon by the 
Charleston Association as early as 1756 as the first and proper 
agency for the settlement of any difficulty within a church which 
the latter was unable itself to adjust satisfactorily. 12 

In 1772, when the First Baptist Church of New York objected to 
the admission of the Second Church into the Philadelphia Associa- 
tion "on account of difficulties subsisting between the two churches," 
"they were advised to call the aid of some sister churches to assist 



11 Fnrman Wood, "A Hist, of the Charleston Assoc," p. 36. 

12 The Attleborough-Bellingham case referred to on page 2>7 would 
be in principle an illustration under the first interpretation given above, al- 
though the trouble there was not internal but one between two churches. 



THE ENTRANCE OF THE COUNCIL 39 

in settling them. Accordingly they chose our brethren" (five 
named) * * * "who are to meet * * * to attend on that business." 
Here the principle of the council is endorsed, but the form is more 
that of a committee of the Association. The next year, when nothing 
had come of this action, the Association referred the case to a com- 
mittee of three, apparently with full power to receive the Second 
Church into the Association. 

The Warren Association, in 1782, in response to a request from 
the church at Harwich for 

"advice as to the best mode of proceeding in case any 
Church should deviate from the faith and order of the 
gospel as held by these Churches : 

Voted, We are of the opinion, that in such cases the 
neighboring Churches ought to inform the deviating 
Church of their uneasiness, and desire a candid hearing ; 
if this is denied, or if it be granted, and satisfaction is 
not obtained, they should withdraw fellowship from said 
Church, and give information to the next Association, 
who have a right to drop such Church from this body; 
though we disclaim all power and jurisdiction over the 
Churches." 

Here again we see the principle of the council endorsed by the 
Association, though it asserts its own right to drop a church from 
membership, as it possessed the sole right to admit to membership. 
That same year, 

"A letter was presented by Elder Barstow, in respect 
to the difficulties subsisting between him and the Church 
at Sutton. Voted, That we conceive it is entirely incon- 
sistent with the original design of this Association to 
interfere in any such matters." 

It was found, however, that the Association could not prevent 
itself from being involved in such cases, so we read in the Minutes 
of 1785, 

"As difficulties in the church at Sutton brought on 
long discussions, without a possibility of doing anything 
to settle them ; Voted, That those brethren of the church, 
formerly acknowledged a member of this Association, 
here present, do not set as members of this body, nor 
anything be done relative to the result of the councils 
which they have had on said difficulties; and that this 
Association advise both the contending parties to unite 
in a mutual council before our next yearly meeting." 



4-0 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

In 1788, this Association took action touching three of the 
churches belonging to it. The messengers from the Church at 
Woodstock were 

"requested to omit taking a seat at this meeting, in 
hopes that before another annual association their diffi- 
culties will be settled." 

Two other churches were dropped from the Association, in one 
case the latter finding the warrant for its action "from information 
by a late council of churches and other good evidence." In general, 
the Association has distinguished between the dissolution of the 
membership of a church in the Association and the disfellowship of 
a church by sister churches, the latter action being secured normally 
through a council. While practically the vote of an Association to 
drop a church may be considered by the other churches as denom- 
inational disfellowship, theoretically the relation of the expelled 
church to other churches is not disturbed, as membership in an 
Association is a purely voluntary relation. 

From the way in which the council came into Baptist polity, it 
is evident that no definite date can be assigned as the time when it 
became a fully recognized institution. In an appendix there will be 
found a list of such councils before 1821 as have come to the 
writer's attention, and that incomplete list will suggest that long 
before the end of the eighteenth century, the council had been 
adopted and developed as a regular organ of ecclesiastical life. 
While much of the earlier direct evidence already adduced shows 
clearly that almost from the first need of such an institution the 
council offered itself as a convenient instrument and was adjusting 
itself into its proper sphere, it is from indirect evidence that we are 
most assured that this was the case. To present only one out of 
numerous illustrations, here is one from the Shaftsbury Association 
Minutes of 1791. 

"Query from the church in Ashfield : When any mat- 
ter of difficulty has been fairly discussed by a council 
from any sister churches, has any neighboring church a 
legal right to demand a hearing of said difficulty? pro- 
vided those justified by the result of a council do not 
request it, and the party judged to be in the wrong 
refuse to join in council?" 

The significance of this does not lie in the negative answer which 
the Association gave to the query, though that implies the right of 
the council in such a case to due respect on the part of a neighboring 
church; but in the assumption of a relatively obscure rural church 
as early as 1791, that the council is the regular agency for the settle- 



THE ENTRANCE OF THE COUNCIL 41 

ment of difficulties in a Baptist church which the church itself seems 
unable to settle in a way satisfactory to its own members and the 
sister churches which may be indirectly involved in the case. This 
shows that by this time, the council had become a well-recognized 
institution among Baptists. 

In treating the status and, more particularly, the functions of the 
council, we shall introduce considerable material which would be 
pertinent to the present chapter. It will be sufficient here to say 
merely that as the Associational organization became more system- 
atized and the principles of ecclesiastical polity were more care- 
fully and consciously wrought out in the constitutions and practices 
of the Associations, we find that while the latter were ever ready 
to serve the best interests of the churches, occasionally taking action 
which under peculiar circumstances seemed expedient though 
objectionable as a precedent, they show, as is evident from what we 
have already seen, a remarkable self-restraint in their relation to the 
council. The early interchange of the functions of the two institu- 
tions makes the problem of their differentiation complicated ; a 
priori, one would suppose that the Association as more highly 
organized, would have sidetracked the council and assumed its 
functions. The reason for the preservation of the council alongside 
the Association is probably to be found in the fear lest the Associa- 
tion should become too dominant and be transformed into a consocia- 
tion or synod, with legislative and administrative authority over the 
individual churches. By referring to councils those matters which 
were more directly related to the churches at large, — as the ordina- 
tion and disfellowship of ministers, and other matters which involved 
the denominational standing of ministers and churches, a check was 
placed upon any tendency in the Association toward presbyterianism. 
Yet the Association still offered itself as a regular opportunity for 
any local church to secure advice from its sister churches, so the 
records of the Associations continue to be an important source of 
information for the student of the council as a denominational 
institution. It is unnecessary, however, for us to use further in 
this connection the material thus offered, for it simply corroborates 
the fact already shown, that by the time the Baptist churches are 
sufficiently numerous to feel seriously the need of the assistance and 
protection of such an institution, it has already found a place in 
their denominational polity; though we shall see, as we trace its 
further development, that the distinction between the functions of 
the Association and those of the council was not yet determined. 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE STATUS OF THE COUNCIL. 

In the preceding chapter we have traced the gradual entrance of 
the council into denominational recognition, or we might say, the 
emergence of the council as an institution through the application of 
the principles of fellowship to the varied conditions in which the 
churches found themselves. From the nature of its origin, the 
council is not a static thing and, as we shall see, it has always shown 
its vitality by its ability to develop and to adjust itself to meet 
new conditions. So when we speak of the status of the council, we 
must recognize that in some particulars this will vary with the 
growth and the changed relations of the churches. Yet there are 
some principles which have always been adhered to. 

In the first place, the council has ever been regarded as the 
servant, not the master of the churches. As we have traced its 
introduction into Baptist polity, we have seen that it was not imposed 
upon the churches from without, but was called into service by them- 
selves to perform functions which the churches found necessary for 
their own best welfare. It was not self-creative, but the product of 
the growing fellowship among the churches. Its purpose was 
utilitarian, not ecclesiastical. It sprang into being from the needs of 
the churches, independent, yet constrained by the bonds of fellow- 
ship, and not from the impulse of the denomination to organise itself 
for corporate expression. 

Another principle is very evident from the nature of the origin 
of Baptist councils. In no sense are they essential to the existence 
of a true church or ministry. The churches antedate the council 
which was called into being by them. The local church is independ- 
ent and possesses through its union with Christ, without reference 
to other bodies of Christians, a self- sufficiency to live its own eccle- 
siastical life, choose its own ministry, administer the ordinances and 
exercise discipline over its own membership. This has ever been 
regarded a most fundamental principle of Baptist polity. 

A third principle follows from these, — namely, that in its relation 
to the local church, the council is advisory only. The council exists, 
we are told in the church manuals, solely for the purpose of giving 
advice, with no authority to enforce its own decisions. The Warren 

42 



THE STATUS OF THE COUNCIL 43 

Association in 1792 shows the opinion of the Baptists in its con- 
stituency in this item from its Minutes : 

"A Quere. Whether the judgment or result of an 
ecclesiastical council, is more than advisory? Answered 
unanimously in the negative." 
The previous year, the principle was set forth very lucidly in 
the circular letter' of the Shaftsbury Association, (lying partly in 
Vermont), which gives a very concrete reason why a church cannot 
be compelled to follow the advice which a council may give. 
Though the letter is speaking specifically of the Association, it is the 
Association in its capacity as an advisory council, so the principle 
involved is the same ; likewise, it applies more broadly than to cases 
of discipline merely, though these are specially referred to. 

"Finally, brethren, we consider ourselves to have no 
pozver as an association to determine any cases of discip- 
line in the churches. But we are only to give our advice 
and opinion in those points, and intelligence in such mat- 
ters as come within the limits of a free Christian con- 
ference." * * * 

"We are sensible that some may object to this, and 
say, that the church is imperfect and liable to make 
wrong judgment. True, — but if we admit of decisive 
councils, to whose judgment the church must submit, — 
if their judgment is in opposition to the church, and the 
church is not convinced that they were wrong, — they 
cannot restore the member rejected, without counter- 
acting their own judgments ; and if they do it upon the 
judgment of others, still they can have no more fellow- 
ship with such a person than before. It appears hence, 
that decisive councils immediately militate against real 
fellowship and gospel union in the churches. But coun- 
cils, for advice only, in difficult cases, are useful. In this 
way, the churches and brethren may gain light, and all 
their difficulties be happily settled." 

Now while this principle is attested historically and as a theory 
is maintained consistently as regards the relation of the individual 
council to the specific case which has been submitted to it for advice, 
the council as an institution, in its relation to the Baptist denomina- 
tion, — or if any one prefers, in its relation to the fellowship of 
Baptist churches, — has occupied a position both theoretically and his- 
torically which cannot be adequately described merely as "advisory." 
We are interested in a larger phase of the institution. What is the 
status of this "advisory" council? From the standpoint of the local 



44 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

church most directly interested in the council and looking only at 
the specific decision which the council reaches, it is true that the 
advice of that particular council carries only so much weight as 
there is sound reason in it, and the local church will doubtless govern 
itself accordingly. Yet in the decision of a council, unless the in- 
tegrity of the latter is under suspicion, there is a momentum in its 
impact upon the consciousness of the denomination and of the 
local church as well that is not fully represented by the mere sound- 
ness of the advice itself. There is another factor involved. The 
advice is the advice of a council, not that of an irresponsible group 
of men. 

The distinction just made is important to be borne in mind as 
we continue our study of the subject, and especially because it in- 
volves a different object of study from that which has presented 
itself to most previous writers on this topic. The church manuals 
have been chiefly interested in showing the relation of the local 
independent church to the specific council which it might call, while 
our concern is rather with the institution as such. For that reason, 
as we consider the status of the council, we turn first, after these 
preliminary remarks, to the relation of the council to the churches 
at large ; then we will consider its relation to the church or churches 
calling it, and finally its relation to its immediate constituency. 

I. THE RELATION OF THE COUNCIL TO THE CHURCHES AT LARGE. 

This rests upon no claim of the council itself to represent the out- 
side churches, but rather upon the confidence of the churches not 
represented that those which are, will act judiciously and in every 
way so as to retain the respect of the churches at large. If the 
origin of the council had been different from what it was, especially 
if it had come into being from the assertion of the neighboring or 
the larger churches of the right to decide the controversies within 
the local church or to determine the standing of churches or minis- 
ters, the council would have had the opposition not only of the local 
church but of the whole denomination as well. In other words, the 
council would never have found a place among American Baptists. 
But the council has always, when called in sincerity, been given its 
tasks as a sacred trust, in which the interests of the larger fellowship 
were involved no less really than were those of the local church most 
directly concerned. By general consent, except for some sporadic 
opposition, it became the settled polity among Baptist churches, in 
the gradual way which we have been tracing, that the matters which 
specially involved the principle of fellowship, though they indeed in 
the last analysis belonged to the local church, were to be, not with- 
drawn from the jurisdiction of the local church, but first submitted 
to the advice of sister churches in council, who would be considered 



THE STATUS OF THE COUNCIL 45 

competent to act in behalf of the larger sisterhood. The concrete 
illustrations of cases thus referred will occupy our attention in the 
next chapter, while in the preceding one, the general nature of the 
relationship of the council to the churches at large has been at least 
indirectly indicated, so that little besides the brief summary statement 
just made is necessary. The aspects of the relationship which may 
need a little further elucidation may be adequately brought out as we 
consider briefly two or three practical problems which may seem- 
naturally to arise from the lack of any close and formal connection 
between the council and the denomination at large, and which as a 
matter of fact have arisen in the historical development of the 
institution. 

First, what churches may be considered competent to act for the 
denomination so as properly to conserve its interests, which might 
suffer at the hands of an irresponsible independent church? The 
answer to this question is, as made by the council in history, that 
in general a fair number of the churches in the immediate vicinity 
may safely be entrusted with the consideration of the more ordinary 
affairs which are submitted to a council. The tendency to follow 
the associational lines as the normal limits for the composition of a 
council will come to our attention again later ; the extension 
of the invitation to the neighboring churches to sit in the council 
has generally been considered sufficient. It has sometimes been the 
case that the neighboring churches are directly or indirectly involved 
in some case of controversy within a local church. Under such cir- 
cumstances, a council has better standing before the denomination if 
its membership includes a wider range of churches and the geo- 
graphical basis of selection has been abandoned altogether. This 
will generally be the case if some churches of wide prominence or 
even individuals who are held in especial esteem are included. An 
ex parte council, in particular, has occasionally secured a better 
standing because of such a composition. A good illustration of this 
is found in the ex parte council called in 1858 at Williamsburg, 
N. Y., which included a few churches in the vicinity, but a majority 
from a distance, among the delegates being such prominent Baptist 
laymen as Governors Briggs of Massachusetts and Fletcher of 
Vermont Such a council, reaching as it did in this case a unani- 
mous decision, would carry more weight with the churches at large 
than would a small council gathered from the immediate vicinity of 
the local church. 1 The essential point is not the geographical loca- 
tion, relative to the local church, of the churches invited in, but the 



Watchman and Reflector, Aug. 5, 1858. 



46 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

ability of the churches which are invited to give a fair decision to the 
case before them. 

This suggests a second problem : How can the denomination be 
protected from packed councils ? The custom of calling in the neigh- 
boring churches has been in itself a partial safeguard against this 
danger, and any departure from the geographical rule, especially if 
these churches are not invited, is liable to cast suspicion upon a 
council unless the facts justify such a variation. Thus in 1845, the 
Christian Watchman refers to a council held at Augusta, Maine, and 
impugns its integrity because the council was not composed of the 
pastors and delegates from churches in the vicinity. 2 The next issue 
of the paper, however, states that according to a member of one of 
the Baptist churches in the city where the council was held, there 
were good reasons for inviting some churches from a distance. It is 
true in ecclesiastical affairs no less than in political and economic 
matters, that publicity is in itself a safeguard against fraud. If 
it is known that a council is packed or if its action is for any reason 
under suspicion, the churches at large are perfectly free to ignore its 
action altogether, and as a rule, they will do so. The minute offered 
by Dr. E. H. Johnson and adopted by a council at West Greenwich, 
R. L, in 1 881, though referring specifically to ordination, is applicable 
to all other actions which depend upon conciliar approval for their 
acceptance by the denomination. 

"When a council to examine and ordain is called from 
churches so limited in number or location as to raise just 
suspicion that the judgment of other churches is evaded 
rather than sought, ordination by such a council confers 
only a formal and not a real endowment, and does not 
entitle the person so ordained to recognition by other 
ministers and churches. In such cases a truly representa- 
tive council should be called to examine the person so 
ordained, and publish its conclusions." 3 
The Association often has offered an available opportunity for 
united action on the part of the neighboring churches in any such 
case of flagrant violation of fairness. 

A third problem arises from the possibility of conflicts between 
councils, of which there have been numerous instances. As a rule 
these conflicts lie in divergent decisions of councils, one or more of 
which is under suspicion from the nature of its composition. In the 
case just referred to, for example, a council by a tie vote had refused 



Christian Watchman, Nov. 7, 1845. 
Watchman, Feb. 3, 1881. 



THE STATUS OF THE COUNCIL 47 

to ordain a candidate. The church thereupon called a second and 
smaller council, which voted to ordain. There were other irregu- 
larities introduced in the ordination itself which were the definite 
matter submitted to a third council for action ; the minute passed by 
this cast out the decision of the second council as being secured 
under conditions which "raised just suspicion that the judgment of 
other churches was evaded rather than sought." If we were tracing 
the local history of councils, we would find some very interesting 
material connected with conflicting decisions of various councils, — 
packed, mutual and ex parte; but in most cases an unprejudiced 
mind can reach a reasonable conclusion as to* the integrity of the 
councils. In such cases as are more complicated and the justice ot 
the suspicions not so evident, the method of solution is offered by 
the institution itself, as suggested in the West Greenwich minute 
just quoted, — a truly representative council, like the Chevalier 
Bayard, "without fear and without reproach," should re-examine the 
case, if necessary, de novo. 

2. THE RELATION OF THE COUNCIL TO THE CHURCH CALLING IT. 

In by far the greater number of cases, a council is called by a 
single local church, though there are not a few instances where 
two or more churches have united in issuing the call. This latter 
would be the normal course where there was a controversy between 
two churches or where portions of two churches were to be set off 
as a separate church. Thus in 1814, the churches at Thompson, 
Conn., and Sutton, Mass., issued a joint letter missive for the pur- 
pose of constituting a new church in Dudley (Webster), Mass. 4 
There may be other circumstances, as convenience or even sentiment, 
which make a joint letter missive preferable. In 1904, when a 
church in Oakland, Cal., united with that at Oak Park in calling a 
council for ordination, 5 some members of the council considered 
it an innovation; but as early as 1829, the First Church of Provi- 
dence had united in a similar call with the church at Eastport, 
Maine. In each of these cases, it was the home church of the 
candidate united with that which he was to serve as pastor. 

There have been some cases, moreover, when councils have been 
called without the action of a local church. The ex parte council 
would be the most obvious illustration, but that is generally consid- 
ered as belonging in a special class and as representing abnormal 



4 Reding, C. W. — Hist. Discourse, 50th Anniversary of Baptist Church of 
Webster, Mass. 

5 Pacific Baptist, Nov. 2, 1904. 

6 Christian Watchman, May 29, 1829. Also records of the Providence 
church. 



48 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

conditions. In 1852, the Trustees of the New Hampton (N. H.) 
Institution called a council of the churches to consider the advisabil- 
ity of making changes in its curriculum and also of removing the 
school to Vermont. 7 In 1875, the "Centennial Council" was held at 
the call of the New York Baptist Ministers' Conference, its action 
in regard to a suitable recognition of the Centennial by a denomina- 
tional thank-offering being published as that taken "by a council of 
churches." 8 In 1876, "in pursuance of a call signed by ministers 
in Delaware and Pennsylvania, a council convened in the First Bap- 
tist Church, Chester, Pa.," to consider the formation of a South 
Philadelphia Association. 9 Obviously, these councils are exceptional 
from the nature of the business submitted to them ; but in each case 
the call was issued to the churches for a council ; the body, when it 
convened, considered itself a council; and in each case it seems to 
have organized itself as such. 

Usually, however, the council is convened by a letter missive sent 
by a local church, and we may assume that such is the case as -we 
consider its relation to the church which has called it. There are 
three problems which have arisen here in the history of the council. 

First, is the church bound to follow the advice of the council in 
those matters which have been submitted to it ? Obviously from the 
nature of a local church, in the light of the Baptist conception of its 
independence, there can be no compulsion behind the advice which 
may be given. When we look at the council in the light of its 
relation to the denomination, however, we find that as an institution 
the council carries with its advice a strong moral force. As the 
council was called into being by the spirit of fellowship, it has usually 
been considered a breach of fellowship for a church not to follow its 
advice in matters submitted to it, unless suspicion has been cast upon 
its fairness. This principle is attested again and again by the recog- 
nition of the action of councils by the denomination through other 
councils, Associations, and in other ways. It is the matter of fellow- 
ship which is involved, however, not the. ultimate right of the church 
to decide matters for itself, so far as they concern the local church 
only. 

Another question that has arisen concerns the propriety of the 
representation in the council of the church issuing the call. The 
practice has not been uniform, in regard to the matter, though often 
delegates from the church seeking advice have sat in the council. 
The propriety of such delegates voting has always been seriously 



7 Watchman & Reflector, May 13, 1852. 

8 Report of the Joint Committee of the Centennial Council. 

8 Cook, R. B— The Early and Later Delaware Baptists, p. 132. 



THE STATUS OF THE COUNCIL 49 

questioned, and for them to vote, if that would decide the matter at 
issue, would impair and probably vitiate the council's action in the 
eyes of the churches at large. The delegates from the local church 
have sometimes been considered a committee from the local church 
to present the business to the council and in general to look out for 
the interests of the local body. Thus when the Wallingford, Vt., 
church called a council in 1803 to consider the advisability of 
ordaining a deacon, it "voted that Elder Green act with the council 
in behalf of the church and voted that Colburn Preston serve as a 
committee to answer in behalf of the church." 10 At recent councils 
which the writer has attended, however, the delegates of the church 
calling the council have not been distinguished from those of other 
churches. 

A third question which has arisen, involving the relation of the 
council to the church calling it, is, Can a council enlarge itself? 
This has considerable vehemence of argument and perhaps the more 
consistent theory on the side of a, negative answer, while on the 
other side are a multitude of facts, — that is, precedents. 

Says a reviewer, evidently a Baptist, in the "Christian Review" 
of June, 1841, — 

"How often have we seen councils, after being assem- 
bled, proceed to vote that certain ministers accidentally 
present be invited to take a seat with them and share in 
their deliberations. But how preposterous. An ecclesi- 
astical council originates in the churches, who have sent 
their delegates, and therefore cannot be enlarged or 
diminished by its own action. They have no more right 
to constitute other members than the General Court, 
when in session, have to vote that certain spectators in 
the lobby, be part and parcel of our Legislature. That 
political body consists of exactly so many delegates as 
the people send, and no more. The power of enlarge- 
ment lies not in them. The same is true of the ecclesi- 
astical body of which we are speaking." 

In a similar strain runs the "Star Book" of Dr. E. T. Hiscox, 
which has carried great weight in the denominational counsels : 

"A Council when organized can neither increase nor 
diminish the number of its members. Its composition is 
formed by those who called it, and cannot be changed by 
any other authority. For that reason if cannot admit 



10 Archibald, S. H.— Hist. Sketch of the First Hundred Years of the Bap- 
tist Church of Wallingford, Vt. 



50 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

other persons to membership, nor can it exclude any of 
those who have been called and appointed to consti- 
tute it." 

The fact remains, however, that almost from the beginning coun- 
cils have enlarged themselves, usually, it must be acknowledged, out 
of courtesy to ministerial brethren present. The earliest specific case 
which has come to the writer's attention was at Thompson, Conn., 
in 1798, when it was voted to invite the Rev. Daniel Dow and 
Deacon Thomas Dike of the Congregational Church in the town to 
sit in the council, and it is mentioned that the former took an active 
part in the proceedings. 11 Similar instances of the enlargement of a 
council by its own vote occurred in Exeter, N. H., in 1800; in Cort- 
land, N. Y., in 1801 ; in Wallingford, Vt, in 1803 (and this, after 
the church had formally accepted as a council the brethren who had 
been sent by the churches) ; in Dudley (Webster), Mass., in 1814; 
in Taunton, in 1819; and in numerous other cases up to the present 
time. It is obvious that there must be no suspicion of unfairness in 
any such enlargement, which has generally been by unanimous 
consent. 12 

3. THE RELATION OF THE COUNCIL TO ITS CONSTITUENT CHURCHES. 

We have noted that other bodies than churches may issue a call 
for a council ; it is also possible for such a call to be sent to other 
bodies than churches. Thus the Glenside (Pa.) Baptist Church 
recently issued a call to the churches of the North Philadelphia Asso- 
ciation, seven other churches, the Pennsylvania Baptist State Mission 
Society and the Baptist City Mission Society of Philadelphia. In the 
earlier days, as we have seen, the functions now carried on by coun- 
cils were largely performed by individual ministers or several of 
them, so it is only natural that it has remained customary, in calling 
a council, sometimes to include individual ministers in addition to the 



11 Pinkham, N. J. — "Discourse delivered at the One Hundredth Anniver- 
sary of the Organization of the Baptist Church, Thompson, Conn." 

12 At a recent council which the writer attended, after the council had 
agreed without dissent that certain persons be admitted to its membership, 
the point was raised that since the council had done what, according to 
Hiscox, a council could not do, the enlarged body was not the council to 
which the case in hand had been referred, and so could not sit in judgment 
upon it. The point was overruled by the Moderator; to have allowed it 
would have been to discredit hundreds of Baptist councils whose decisions 
have been accepted in good faith. The delegates from the church which 
called the council had made no protest. There had been opportunity earlier 
to raise objection, when the enlargement was proposed, or, if the objection 
had been seriously meant, there was still opportunity to ask for a reconsidera- 
tion of the vote by which the enlargement had been effected. 



THE STATUS OF THE COUNCIL 5 1 

churches. So, too, there has occasionally been a council composed 
only of ministers, as for example, one for deposition which met in 
Boston in 1904, at the call of the West Medford Church. But in 
general, the persons sitting in a council are there as messengers of 
the churches of which they are members. 

The main question which arises concerning the relation of the 
council to its constituent churches may be considered chiefly an 
academic one. Are the churches really represented in such a 
council? The question harks back to a more fundamental one, — 
Can a Baptist church be represented or in any way delegate its 
powers? — and on this subject the doctors disagree. Dr. Francis 
Wayland, whose opinions always carry great weight, presents a 
strong argument in which he denies the possibility "that a church of 
Christ can be in any proper and legitimate sense represented." 13 Dr. 
E. T. Hiscox takes a similar position, which he states even more 
emphatically : 14 

"A Baptist church cannot represent itself or be repre- 
sented in any other organization whatever. Let this be 
said plainly and with emphasis. A Baptist church can 
send messengers to other churches and to other associa- 
tions by letters or messengers, or both, but to appoint 
delegates or representatives to act for them with execu- 
tive authority and to bind them by such action, would be 
utterly subversive of their polity, and would place them 
at once under a de facto Presbyterian or prelatical gov- 
ernment. For if some convention could be constructed as 
a representative body, composed of duly accredited dele- 
gates, with power to act for the churches, then such con- 
vention would constitute an ecclesiastical body superior 
in authority to the individual churches, with power to 
legislate for them and decree penalties for dissent." 

Both these men make the apparent mistake of confusing repre- 
sentation or the delegation of powers with the absolute surrender 
of all the rights of the individual church. It by no means follows 
that because a representative body has been given certain power 
to act for the churches, it thereby becomes possessed "with power 
to legislate for them and decree penalties for dissent." As Dr. J. B. 
Jeter pointed out long ago in his review of Dr. Wayland' s book, 
while "for certain purposes churches cannot be properly repre- 
sented," yet "representatives may be invested with limited and 



13 Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches, p. 181. 

14 Watchman, Dec. 11, 1890. 



5 2 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

strictly defined powers." 15 The whole development of the council as 
an institution has been based on the assumption that in matters per- 
taining to fellowship, the council represented the churches in a very 
true sense, though of course with no legislative functions. The 
common language of the letters missive and the records of the 
councils bear out this interpretation. The stately and formal lan- 
guage of Thomas Baldwin, (whose obiter dicta are of no little weight 
in matters pertaining to Baptist polity), at the recognition of the 
Baptist Church in Charlestown, in 1801, is of some value in revealing 
the idea of a leading Boston Baptist one hundred years ago as to the 
relation of a council to its constituent churches. 16 

"Dearly Beloved in the Lord: The Churches now 
convened agreeably to your request, by their ministers 
and messengers, having fully examined the papers you 
have laid before them, containing an account of all your 
proceedings relative to your becoming a distinct visible 
church ; have directed me in their behalf to inform you, 
that they are fully satisfied with your proceedings, and 
consider them to have been regular and according to the 
gospel." 

Dr. Baldwin would hardly have used such language unless he 
considered that in a very real sense the messengers in the council 
represented the churches which had sent them, though he by no 
means thought that thereby those messengers had any "power to 
legislate for them and decree penalties for dissent," to use Dr. 
Hiscox's phrase. The language of Dr. Baldwin is not exceptional, 
for other similar phrases are found in other recorded addresses on 
such occasions and in the instructing votes of the councils them- 
selves. 

In 1819, the Worcester Baptist Association expressed its idea as 
to the possibility of a Baptist church being represented, in the 
Preamble to its Constitution adopted that year : 

"We believe that every visible Church of Christ is 
independent of all others, with respect to the admission 
and discipline of its members, and the choice of its 
Officers. As Churches are thus independent, they, like all 
other independent bodies, have a right to delegate a part 
of their powers, when, in their opinion, such delegation 
will promote their benefit, and the general cause of God, 
without contravening any law of Christ." 



''Christian Review, April, 1857. 

18 Printed in a pamphlet entitled "Sacred Performances at the Dedication 
of the Baptist Meeting-House in Charlestown, May 12, 1801." 



THE STATUS OF THE COUNCIL 53 

Yet after all, as already said, the question is chiefly an academic 
one ; its influence has been largely confined to the wording of reso- 
lutions and has very little affected the development of the Council. 17 

4. THE EX PARTE COUNCIL. 

The ex parte council has well been termed the "safety-valve" 
of the congregational polity (independency). It finds its place in 
those cases of controversy where one of the parties unreasonably re- 
fuses to join in such measures as are necessary to secure a mutual 
council. If the case lies between two churches, it is within the 
province of either to call a council of its sister churches to advise 
it in the premises, so no special principle is involved other than that 
in every council. It is obvious, however, that in such cases of 
controversy between churches, a mutual council will carry greater 
weight with the churches at large. In a narrower sense, the term 
ex parte has been applied to a council which is called by a minority 
of a church, presumably because it believes that it has been deprived 
of its just rights by the action of the majority. The right of such 
a council to exist has been called in question, and for that reason, 
if for no other, it demands some special consideration in our study 
of the status of the council as an institution. 

Just when the first ex parte council, in this narrower meaning, 
was held among American Baptists, the researches of the present 
writer have been unable to discover; the theory of the ex parte 
council found expression relatively early, and the Congregational 
churches had found this species serviceable as early as 1669. 18 The 
earliest date of a Baptist ex parte council for which the writer has 
found definite evidence is 1821, when one was held in connection 
with troubles in the church at Ovid, N. Y. 19 That same year, a 



17 An interesting illustration of this is found in the logomachy recorded 
in the history of the Constitution of the Springfield (111.) Baptist Associa- 
tion. In the Constitution adopted in 1837 we find the following: 

Art. 2. "This body shall be composed of churches embracing the fol- 
lowing" (doctrines). ... In 1850, this was amended so that it read, "This 
body shall be composed of messengers from churches embracing . . ." etc. 
In 1863, the Constitution was revised and we read in the 1st Article, "This 
Association shall be composed of messengers, who shall be members of, and 
appointed by the churches which they represent." It is noticeable that there 
is an advance in the language of 1863 over that of 1850, although it does not 
recogrlize the presence of the churches in the Association so explicitly as had 
the original Constitution. The actual work of the Springfield Association 
does not seem to have been affected in the least by these changes in phrase- 
ology. 

18 Dexter, "Congregationalism," p. 550. 

19 Halsey, "Hist, of the Seneca Bap. Assoc," p. 165 sq. 



54 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

query was addressed to the Leyden Association, in Vermont and 
Massachusetts, by the church at Wardsboro' : 

"Is it expedient, when any church is laboring with an 
offender, that he should call brethren from other 
churches, without request from the church; and have 
those brethren so called, or any brother just cause to be 
offended, if the church, dealing with the offender, should 
not vote them, a seat with the church ?" 
The query was referred to a committee, and the answer finally 
entered in the Minutes : 

"As the church is an independent body, we answer 
in the negative.'' 
The question is awkwardly framed and, as punctuated, forms 
one question, to which the Association gave one answer. To the 
latter part of the query only one answer could be given, for the 
question implies the possible right of an ex parte council to demand, 
on penalty of the severance of fellowship, (for that lies potentially in 
the idea of a just cause of offense), that the church in question 
should admit the council to its own deliberations over a case of 
discipline. More likely the intent of the latter part of the query was 
to ascertain whether it was a breach of fellowship for the church 
to refuse to participate in a regularly assembled ex parte council, 
thus making it a mutual body. 20 The negative answer of the Asso- 
ciation, under either interpretation of the latter part of the query, 
cannot be taken as a negative answer to the first part of the query 
taken by itself, — that is, a denial of the expediency of an ex parte 
council. 

This same Leyden Association, in 1813, had been asked to give 
its opinion whether it was "gospel-wise and tending to increase the 
fellowship of our churches," for an "ex party (sic) council to decide 
upon a matter of difficulty which a mutual council had previously 
decided upon, without giving any notice to the mutual council." The 
answer which a committee of five elders reported back to the Asso- 
ciation is rather non-committal, but it is perhaps worth presenting 
here. 

"We say nothing about the conduct of councils being 
gospel-wise, as there is no rule in the gospel respecting 
them; no church ought to feel their fellowship lessened 
on account of advice given or received, unless there is 
evidence of corruption." 



20 Numerous instances might be cited when an ex parte council has been 
transformed into a mutual one by the acceptance by the other party of an 
invitation to join in the deliberations. E. g., at Kingsbury, N. Y., in 1827. 



THE STATUS OF THE COUNCIL 5^ 

Our immediate interest lies rather in the query itself, which sug- 
gests that such an ex parte council had been actually held or at least 
proposed. To go back still farther, it is probable that the councils 
referred to in the vote of the Warren Association, in 1785, as having 
been held on the difficulties in the Sutton church, were ex parte, as 
the contending parties are advised to unite in a mutual council. 21 

The principle of the ex parte council, however, had found expres- 
sion as early as 1756, in the Charleston Association in South Caro- 
lina. That year, in response to this query, 22 

"Whether all matters debated in a church are to be 
determined by plurality of voices, and that determination 
final, though it grieve the conscience of some ?" 

the answer was given : 

"No church or majority of a church, has power to 
bind the conscience; if therefore the majority should 
introduce errors subversive of the peace of the church, 
and wound the consciences of the. brethren, the minority 
may, after all proper methods to reclaim the rest by calm 
reasoning, by calling in the assistance of the other 
churches, and by referring the matter to the Association, 
should these prove ineffectual, be received as the church, 
and the majority disowned." 

There has been not a little written both for and against the pro- 
priety of the ex parte council ; but no simpler, yet comprehensive 
statement concerning it has been made than that just quoted, which 
has the added endorsement of the actual practice of the Baptist 
churches at large. It is unfortunate that there should ever be need 
of such a council. To quote from an editorial in the Watchman of 
Jan. 18, 1877, — 

"The calling of an ex parte uniformly comes from the 
refusal of a mutual council; and it is incomprehensible 
to us why a church should ever refuse to unite in calling 
a mutual council." 

The refusal of the majority of a church to call a mutual council 
is not in itself evidence of injustice on their part; but if the earlier 
disturbing action of the majority is at all questionable, (even if it fol- 
lows extreme improprieties on the part of the minority), then their 
refusal to join in a mutual council to consider all the difficulties 
makes an appeal to an ex parte council prima facie justifiable. 



a Cf. p. 39. 

22 Fnrman Wood. "Hist, of the Charleston Assoc," p. 36. 



5^ BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

Churches have usually sent delegates to participate in such councils, 
and they have been efficient in solving many difficult cases. When 
they have failed, it has almost always been because they have been 
not only ex parte but also packed councils. An ex parte council, even 
more scrupulously than the mutual, must avoid all appearance of 
being unfairly constituted; its integrity in composition and in its 
action must be above suspicion. Where this has been the case, the 
ex parte council has a position established historically in American 
Baptist polity. 

5. OPPOSITION TO THE COUNCIL. 

It cannot be denied that there have always been some who have 
opposed the council as an institution, in toto, and still more who have 
resisted certain tendencies in its development. In general, the atti- 
tude toward the council is dependent upon one's conception of church 
independency. The more one conceives of the life of the local church 
as self-centered, with no inter-church obligations, with all its func- 
tions as a church confined within its own membership, the less favor 
will he have for the council. But as the social obligations of the 
individual Christian are to-day recognized in addition to the need 
of such soul-culture as Bunyan depicted in his "Pilgrim's Progress," 
so the denominational consciousness of American Baptists has been 
alive more and more to the mutual obligations of the churches. The 
particularist, however, has been in evidence, and the council has from 
time to time given him opportunity to put in his plea for absolute 
independence. One of the strongest attacks upon the council and its 
very right to exist is to be found in John G. Stearns' book, published 
in 1832, entitled "The Primitive Church: Its Organization and 
Government; etc." In Chapter 8, which is entitled "Remarks on 
Councils," he says: 

"The practice of calling councils, to decide on mat- 
ters of difficulty, and in other cases relating to the gov- 
ernment of churches, has become quite common among 
Baptists. * * * I shall undertake to show that this is 
departing widely from the principles of church govern- 
ment, as laid down in the New Testament, and acknowl- 
edged by every regular Baptist Church." 

Very correctly, Mr. Stearns says of the council of Acts 15, — "It 
was the meeting only of an individual church, properly a church 
meeting." There is a certain unconscious humor in his question, 
in speaking of Christ's instructions in Matthew 18, — "Why did he 
not add, If the church are not agreed, appeal to a council?" Mr. 
Stearns had such an advanced conception of the rights of inde- 



THE STATUS OF THE COUNCIL 57 

pendency that he asserted that if a church even consents to unite 
with a disaffected minority in calling a mutual council, — 

"In doing this, the church give up their independ- 
ence, and actually acknowledge the existence of a higher 
court." 
It is evident that Mr. Stearns confused the majority of a church 
with the church itself. Very few Baptists have gone to the extreme 
in their opposition to the council that this book manifests, but, to 
continue the quotation from the editorial of the Watchman, — 
"The opinion seems to be widely prevalent that for 
a church to submit its proceedings to the advice of a 
council, is to derogate some way from its independence. 
A very strange apprehension; for a council can only 
advise, leaving the church free to accept or decline the 
advice offered. To ask counsel of another invests him 
with no authority, and the asking implies no unworthy 
concession. * * * To assume that the decision of a 
church majority must not be questioned, is to assert not 
independence, but infallibility." 



CHAPTER V. 

THE FUNCTIONS OF THE COUNCIL. 

Councils may be called to consider whatever matters the church 
or others issuing the call desire to submit to them; but the most 
usual purposes for which they are summoned are connected with the 
standing of churches or ministers, the conservation of peace, and the 
enlightenment of a church or churches in matters pertaining to the 
local or general denominational welfare. It may be objected that 
the sole function of the council is to give advice in such cases as are 
brought before it, and as that has already been said, a chapter on 
"The Functions of the Council" is an impertinence. Again atten- 
tion must be called to the distinction which we have been making 
between an individual council and the institution in its historical 
relation to the Baptist churches. Strictly speaking, an individual 
council has but one essential function, the giving of advice ; but the 
council as an advice-giving institution has numerous functions and 
it is with these that we shall now be more particularly concerned. 
As, however, from the relation of the council to the denomination, its 
advice in certain matters carries with it, by custom and general 
consent, the presumption, unless the integrity of the council is 
assailed, that the churches at large will accept its decision, the 
council has sometimes felt warranted in participating itself in the 
action which it has advised. This co-operation of the council will 
also call for some attention. 

I. THE CONSTITUTION AND RECOGNITION OF CHURCHES. 

In the early years, the organization of a church was a simple 
affair, though the presence of a minister was considered advisable. 1 
Morgan Edwards even held that there must be one minister present, 



*It might be simply by the uniting in church covenant of qualified persons, 
as in the case of the 1st Bap. Church, Haverhill, Mass., whose record reads : 
"The 9th day of May, 1765, we whose names are first affixed to the covenant 
which is here inserted, after solemn fasting and prayer, mutually agreed to 
walk in gospel order together, having been before baptized by immersion, but 
not joined to any church." 

58 



THE FUNCTIONS OF THE COUNCIL 59 

though that was not involved in his definition of a particular church, 
which well expresses the typical Baptist view : 2 

"It is a company of persons called by the gospel, and 
statedly meeting in one place for the exercise of the 
Christian religion ; who are so confederate among them- 
selves as to be one body, distinct from all other bodies of 
the like or different sort ; and so impowered and author- 
ized, as to be sufficient of themselves to manage their 
own affairs, so as to obtain the end of a church/' 
Some of the pastors who went on occasional or frequent evan- 
gelistic tours from time to time organized into churches, to which 
they gave formal recognition, the people whom they gathered to- 
gether, some of whom they may themselves have baptized. Abel 
Morgan of Philadelphia, Shubael Stearns and Daniel Marshall in 
Virginia, and later, Hezekiah Smith, in New Hampshire and Maine, 
were prominent among those who were active in this work. More 
often, an individual church would sanction the separation of some 
of its members and their organization into a new church. The 
Kittery case already referred to is probably the earliest and a very 
typical example. There grew up, however, the feeling that a more 
formal recognition should be secured, though it was not considered 
absolutely essential. We have already noted a few instances, as that 
at Cape May Court House, in 17 12, where churches sought recogni- 
tion through the approval of councils. In 1767, the church at 
Thompson, Conn., dismissed some of its members who were living 
at Royalston, Mass., that they, with some other Baptists, might form 
a church there. In a statement at the beginning of their records we 
read : 3 

"After being repeatedly disappointed in respect to 
obtaining ecclesiastical assistance from abroad, the 
brethren unanimously resolved to form themselves into 
a church." 
This reveals the consciousness that recognition, doubtless through 
a council or at least through the approval of neighboring pastors, 



2 "Customs of Primitive Churches," Prop. III. In Prop. IV., Edwards 
gives what he considers an orderly procedure in the constitution of a church, 
though he would not insist that all of the details were essential. It includes, 
among other things, the presence of at least one minister, fasting, an examin- 
ation into the qualifications of those who wish to become members, resulting 
in satisfaction with their faith and that_ they have been duly baptized, hav- 
ing had hands laid on them ; they then sign the covenant and are pronounced 
a church. After prayer, they give each other the right hand of fellowship 
and the kiss of charity. 

'Minutes of the Wendell Assoc, 1854. 



60 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

was highly desirable, but not absolutely necessary for the existence 
of a true church. 

As churches began to multiply and to be formed in closer prox- 
imity to one another, it very soon became the general rule to seek 
the advice of a council in their organization. The function of the 
council has been considered one of "constitution" or of "recogni- 
tion." The former designation is more closely connected with the 
idea that a formal declaration, by a minister or other representative 
of the sister churches, that the body of believers is a church of 
Christ, is much more orderlv if not almost essential. Recognition 
is rather the expression of the fellowship of the sister churches. In 
some cases churches have had no other recognition than their admis- 
sion into an Association, though it is more generally the custom 
for an Association to admit no church till it has been recognized by a 
council. 

The council acts, theoretically, for the churches represented in it, 
but the language of the records usually makes the recognition or 
constitution the act of the council. In 1795, a single neighboring 
church was called in council at Venice, N. Y., but we read that it 
was "the council" which gave fellowship. 4 In 1805, a council met at 
Sedgwick, Me., which "constituted" as a Baptist church a former 
Congregational church which, with its pastor, had gone over as a 
body to Baptist views. 5 

Councils called to recognize churches have not always considered 
their tasks merely perfunctory, for in not a few instances they have 
refused to give the recognition asked for. Sometimes this has been 
because a factious minority of a church have sought recognition as 
a new organization, or because the location of the new church would 
interfere with the growth of a church already established. Thus in 
January, 1796, a council which met at Stephentown, N. Y., objected 
to the constitution of a church there "on account of nearness to the 
Hancock church and the fact that some members were not clear in 
their relation to former membership in neighboring churches." 6 A 
second council, consisting of the same brethren, in June of the same 
year, voted to recognize a church there. Occasionally a council has 
advised the postponement of the organization of a church till there 
should be more visible signs of strength ; such was the action taken 
by a council in 1801, which advised against setting off a part of the 



4 Hist. of the 1st Bap. Church of Romulus (N. Y.) 

G Mills, R. C. — "Historical Discourse— 50th Anniversary of 1st Bap. 
Church" (Salem. Mass.) 

6 Hist. and Manual of First Bap. Church, Stephentown, N. Y. 



THE FUNCTIONS OF THE COUNCIL 6l 



Wallingford, Vt., Church as a new church in Mt. Holly ; three years 
later, another council granted the desired recognition. 7 

In 1811, the council which met at Albany, N. Y., for the purpose 
of constituting the First Baptist Church there, amended the Articles 
of Faith and Covenant which the church had drawn up; these 
amendments were accepted by the church without dissent and the 
council then voted to fellowship the church. 8 

2- DISSOLUTION AND DISFELLOWSHIP. 

The same principles which have led to the general practice of 
submitting to the advice of a council the question of the institution 
and recognition of new churches, have led to a similar method in 
regard to dissolution and disfellowship. In 1834, by a majority of 
one vote, the First Baptist Church of Shelburne and Deerfield had 
voted to disband ; the minority applied to the church in Sunderland, 
Mass., to be organized as a branch of that church. A council was 
called in June of that year, which decided that a church could not 
be dissolved by a simple vote, so there was still a First Church of 
Shelburne and Deerfield. 9 Any other conclusion would place 
churches in constant peril ; for otherwise a small minority, tem- 
porarily in the majority at a business meeting, could put an end to a 
church's existence. Upon advice of a council, however, a church 
may vote to disband, or dissolution could presumably be secured 
without a council by unanimous or even a majority vote, if the 
matter was properly brought up for action. In 1879, a council 
which met at Franklin, Mass.. "advised the church to bring its 
existence to a termination." The church thereupon voted to dis- 
band, directing the clerk to give letters to any Baptist church to 
all present members who should apply for them within three 
months. 10 This case illustrates the normal function of the council 
in the dissolution of a Baptist church. 

It is also the function of councils to advise the disfellowship- 
ping of churches. Attention has already been called (page 40) 
to the distinction between disfellowship and the severance of the 
associational tie. Expulsion from an Association, however, is gen- 
erally from some cause which would involve disfellowship as the 
next step. One of the earliest formulations of the appropriate pro- 
cedure in such cases is found in the "Plan" under which the Shafts- 



7 Archibald, S. H.— Hist. Sketch of First Hundred Years of Bap. Church 
of Wallingford, Vt. 

8 Manual of First Bap. Church. 
9 Sheldon. Hist, of Deerfield, Mass. 
"Watchman, July 3, 1879. 



62 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

bury Association was organized. 11 In its original form, adopted 
in 1807, it read as follows : 

"Art. V. If any church of the union shall become 
corrupt in doctrine or practice, it shall be the duty of 
any sister church who may have knowledge of the same 
to labor with said offending church. If satisfaction is 
not obtained, it will then become necessary for the ag- 
grieved church to call for the advice and assistance of 
other churches; and if they judge there is sufficient 
ground to suspend fellowship with the delinquent 
Church, their testimony and report to the Association 
shall be a sufficient reason to drop it from the minutes, 
and to publish to the world, that they have withdrawn 
that fellowship which they had given to said delinquent 
Church." 
In 1828 a new form was adopted, stating more explicitly that a 
mutual council was to be called, under penalty of the disfellowship 
of the recalcitrant church and its expulsion from the Association. 
The writer has found no specific case where a council has been held 
for such a purpose. In fact, those councils which have apparently 
disfellowshipped churches, in each case that has come to light in 
this study of the sources, have been called by minorities within the 
churches, and the minority has been recognized as the true church. 
The disfellowshipping of the majority is not, strictly speaking and 
necessarily, the disfellowshipping of the church itself. Apparently 
in cases where corruption in a church has not led to internal dis- 
sensions and an ex parte council, expulsion from the Association 
has been the only formal step towards denominational disfellowship. 

3. ORDINATION. 

There have been three leading theories among American Bap- 
tists as to the location of the authority to ordain ministers. 

(1) It is lodged in the ministry. Most who hold this view 
believe that the ministers should never exercise this authority in- 
dependently of the local church. 

(2) It is lodged in the individual church. Most who hold this 
view believe that the local church should seek the approval of sister 
churches in setting apart any one to the ministry. 

(3) It is lodged in the council, which is called together for 
such a purpose by a local church. 12 



"Wright, Stephen. Shaftsbury Bap. Assoc, from 175 1 to 1853. 
"These three views are well set forth in the "Christian Review" of Sept., 
1844. 



THE FUNCTIONS OF THE COUNCIL 63 

While it is not within the scope of our present study to con- 
sider the nature of ordination as understood by Baptists, it will 
be pertinent to examine the part which the council has taken his- 
torically in connection with ordination, noting especially how va- 
rious councils have interpreted their duties in the setting apart of a 
ministry. 

Some of the earliest councils were held in connection with the 
ordination of ministers. The history of some of them has already 
been told at some length (page 30 sq.). There is no evidence, 
however, that ordination with the assistance of a council was ever 
the rule, though the assistance of ministers was considered essential. 
This was particularly true in the South. In 1789, in answer to a 
query concerning ordination, the Charleston Association had an- 
swered : 13 

"It is advised, that the church call in the assistance 
of at least two, but rather three, of the ministers in 
union, who are the most generally esteemed in the 
churches for piety and abilities/' 
In 1808, this same Association made the following answer: 
"It is recommended to the Churches, that on calling 
out a person to preach, they be careful ordinarily to ob- 
tain the assistance of neighboring ministers and 
churches, in forming their judgment of his qualification, 
before he be licensed to go out publicly as a minister." 
The Bowdoinham (Me.) Association in 181 5, in response to a 
query voted : 

"The ordaining of an Elder, or setting apart of one 
to the work of the gospel ministry, is the transaction so 
solemn in its nature, and so important in its conse- 
quences, that it would be highly improper for a church 
belonging to this Association to proceed to the business 
without the concurrence of a suitable number of sister 
churches, furnished with Elders, whom, among other 
things, have received the solemn charge, 'Lav hands 
suddenly on no man/ " 13 
In its circular letters of 1822 and 1824, the Seneca (N. Y.) Asso- 
ciation recommended that ordination should be at the advice of an 
ample council, as the local church "may be feeble and inexperienced, 
and influenced by undue personal attachment." 14 In 1834, this 
Association passed the following resolution: 15 



13 Wood, Furman — Hist, of the Charleston Association. 

"Circular Letter of 1822. 

15 Halsey, Lewis — Hist, of Seneca Baptist Assoc. 



64 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

"Resolved, in view of the great necessity of parti- 
cular care in the introduction of brethren into the 
solemn and responsible office of the Christian ministry, 
that the churches be respectfully requested to procure 
the concurrent advice and approbation of neighboring 
churches and ministers, whenever a candidate, after a 
suitable trial, is to be licensed to preach the Gospel." 
Reference should also be made to the minute adopted by the 
West Greenwich council in 1881, already quoted, (p. 46.) 

Having thus noted these statements which only illustrate the 
general consensus of Baptist opinion, we turn now more specifically 
to the function of the council in ordination. In the invitation sent 
in 1718 for the ordination of Elisha Callendar, the Boston Church 
asked for Elders and Messengers "to give * * * the right 
hand of fellowship in his ordination." In its letter missive of 1738, 
it asked for Elders and Messengers "to assist at ye ordination of 
our Said Elected Pastor." The Springfield council of 1740 was also 
to assist in the ordination as was the Warwick council of 1743. 

It is most probable that the accounts of councils which have 
come down to us, particularly in commemorative sermons and in 
communications to the denominational press, have not always been 
discriminating in their phraseology. Thus we read in one account 
of the council called by the Sandisfield (Mass.) Church in 1790, 
that the church called Benj. Baldwin, "who was ordained by a 
council of five ministers and nine lay delegates representing five 
churches;" 16 while in another account we read, "In March, 1790, 
the church agreed to set Benj. Baldwin apart * * * by ordi- 
nation by the assistance of the several churches." 17 It is evident 
that the former statement is loose while the latter more probably 
states the fact in the case. Yet the constant reiteration of the 
statement, "the council ordained," in local histories and in the de- 
nominational press, with the numerous votes of councils "to proceed 
to the ordination," makes it evident that some Baptists have con- 
sidered that the authority to ordain was lodged in the council or 
delegated to it. To present a few illustrations out of many: In 
1806, a council at Weathersfield, Vt., after examining a candidate, 
voted to ordain him on the day following. 18 In 1829, a council met 
at Providence, R. I., "for the purpose of examining Mr. Francis 
Whitefield Emmons and if approved, of ordaining him to the work 



18 Smith, J. T. "Century of Church Work." Centennial sermon, printed 
in Berkshire Courier, Aug., 1879. 

"Hist, of Sandisfield Church. Also in Association Minutes of 1853. 
18 Johnson, R. G. Hist. Sketch of No. Springfield (Vt.) Bap. Ch. 



THE FUNCTIONS OF THE COUNCIL 65 

of the Gospel ministry." 19 A council at West Boylston, Mass., in 
1832, "proceeded to ordination." We have the statement of J. G. 
Stearns, in his "Primitive Church," published in 1835, that Baptist 
"ministers are in all cases (he believes) ordained by the authority of 
councils." In 1840, at Willimantic, Conn., the council "Voted * * * 
that we now proceed to set him apart as the Pastor of the church, 
by solemn ordination." 20 In 1852, a council at Royalston Centre, 
Mass., "recommends the church to proceed to ordination." 21 The 
Watchman of Sept. 30. 1869, contains an article by a correspondent 
who says that at a recent council the motion was made "That the 
council are satisfied with the relation of Christian experience, call 
to the ministry and views of doctrine to which we have listened and 
that we now proceed to ordain the brother to the work of the min- 
istry." A member of the council objected to the last part of the 
motion on the ground that it was not the council but the church 
which ordains. The motion was then changed from "proceed to 
ordain" to "proceed to the service of ordination." The West Green- 
wich minute already referred to uses the phrase, "a council to ex- 
amine and ordain." It is evident that councils have differently inter- 
preted their function in ordination ; to-day, a vote to recommend 
the church to proceed to the ordination is probably considered most 
consistent with the usual form of the call. 

It has generally been the custom for the council, through a com- 
mittee, on which the candidate and the local church as well as the 
council itself are usually represented, to prepare the order of service 
for the ordination. Strange to say, there has often been a sensitive 
feeling on the part of some members of councils if a church has 
prepared a provisional program in anticipation of the approval of 
the council. Such action by a local church has even been termed an 
insult, being interpreted as an assumption that the work of the coun- 
cil would be merely perfunctory. It should be perfectly obvious, 
however, that the motive is the convenience of all concerned ; more- 
over, unless the ordaining power is lodged in the council, it is difficult 
to see how the latter has any jurisdiction in the ordination service 
at all ; its work is done when it has passed upon the fitness of the 
candidate. But for the warrant of a custom (and the so-called 
"insult" has the equally good warrant of another custom), the coun- 
cil could be charged with infringing upon the rights of the church 
whenever it has appointed a committee to prepare an order of serv- 
ice, unless the church has asked it so to do. The question in gen- 

19 Christian Watchman, May 29, 1829. 
20 Christian Secretary, June 19, 1840. 
-'Watchman and Reflector, March 11, 1852. 



66 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

eral, however, is one only of etiquette, although in one case at least 
the action of a council in connection with the ordination service 
seems to pass over into a question of polity. 

We refer to the action of the council at Pittsfield, Mass., in 
1877, called to consider the advisability of ordaining the pastor-elect 
of the First Baptist Church. After the approval of the candidate 
as worthy of ordination, he requested that the usual laying on of 
hands be omitted. The council voted to proceed to ordination, but 
by vote declined to comply with the request, though it seems to 
have reached an informal agreement to leave the method of laying 
on of hands, which seemed to form part of the objection, to be de- 
cided by the minister who should offer the ordaining prayer and the 
candidate. When the prayer was offered, there was no imposition 
of hands. "The council," remarked The Watchman editorially, "did 
what it refused to do by vote." 22 

It must be acknowledged that custom has given to the council a 
share in the preparation of the order of service; unless, however, 
ordination is by the authority of the council rather than by its ad- 
vice, it is difficult to see how the council had any real jurisdiction in 
the matter of the imposition of hands. It would have been more 
consistent, however, for the candidate not to have made the request 
to the council unless he either intended to follow its advice or else 
considered that the council did have jurisdiction in the matter. 

Complaint has often been made that councils have been called 
to meet so near the appointed time for the public services of ordina- 
tion that they have been obliged to hurry through their deliberations ; 



22 Watchman, June 21, July 5, 12 and 19, 1877. The incident caused con- 
siderable discussion, and shortly afterwards, Dr. Alvah Hovey, President of 
Newton Theological Institution, read to the Boston Baptist Ministers' Con- 
ference a paper entitled "On the Imposition of Hands in Ordination," which 
was printed in the Watchman of Aug. 2, 1877. His conclusions, so far as 
they related at all to the functions of the council, were as follows : 

2. "That this act (laying on of hands) more than any other represents 
and declares the decision of the council to set apart to the Christian ministry, 
and therefore it ought not to be omitted * * * 

4. "That since what is represented and declared by the imposition of 
hands is authorized by a council when it votes to set apart to the Christian 
ministry, the latter act asserts as much authority as the former, and, if the 
latter act is not on that account objectionable, neither is the former. 

5. "That the decision of a properly organized council — made after care- 
ful examination — that the candidate is qualified for the work of the ministry 
and should be entrusted with that office and commended to the churches by a 
public and solemn service — is the strictly indispensable fact. A suitable an- 
nouncement of this decision is a matter of great importance; but the decision 
itself and its publication in some way are indispensible. And in its publica- 
tion, as far as I can judge, the imposition of hands is fully as important as 
the prayer of ordination, the right hand of fellowship, or the charge." 



THE FUNCTIONS OF THE COUNCIL 67 

it has been charged, even, that councils have been induced to approve 
of ordination in some cases by the desire to avoid the embarrass- 
ment of refusal, as a congregation was already assembling. As 
early as 1831, (Feb. 12) the Christian Secretary, in an editorial, sug- 
gested "the propriety of convening a council for the purpose of ex- 
amination some time previous to the period fixed upon for the more 
public exercises." In 1847, the Philadelphia Association recom- 
mended the churches "uniformly to leave the appointment of the 
time for the ordination to the Council they may invite." At some 
time previous to June 1849, the Baptist ministers of Rhode Island 
had passed a standing resolution not to proceed to the ordination of 
any candidate on the same day that the examination should take 
place. When in that year a council met in Richmond, although the 
church, unaware of the resolution, had arranged for the public serv- 
ice on the same day, the council "felt compelled by a sense of duty 
to maintain the rule." 23 

The action of councils in the case of ministers already ordained 
in other denominations has not been altogether consistent. In such 
cases as have come to the writer's attention, the ministers who have 
become Baptists have all come from other evangelical denomina- 
tions, and, in most cases, the previous ordination has been formally 
recognized by the councils. In a few cases, the council has been 
called for the purpose of ordaining the candidate and that has been 
done. This is the prevailing practice in the South. The action 
toward ministers coming from the same denomination has varied. 
Commenting upon the re-ordination of Emory J. Haynes, who for 
a season left the Methodists for the Baptist fold, the Watchman 
remarked, "This transaction, though not without example, is, so far 
as we know, unusual." 24 In September, 1877, a council at Johns- 
town, N. Y., called to recognize or ordain a man who had been a 
Second Adventist minister, voted to ordain him. 23 

The custom of formally ordaining deacons is not now so frequent 
among American Baptists as it was in the earlier days. On quite a 
number of occasions, councils were held in connection with the ordi- 
nation services ; a list of these, of questionable completeness, will be 



^Watchman and Reflector, June 21, 1849. In 1895, the Chicago Associa- 
tion passed the following resolution : 

"Resolved, That we express our conviction that no church should antici- 
pate the action of a council called for the examination of a candidate for ordi- 
nation by arranging for the ordination of the candidate in advance of the 
meeting of the council.'' 

The following year a similar resolution was passed. 

24 Watchman, April 19, 1877. 
25 Watchman, Sept. 27, 1877. 



68 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

found in Appendix B. Councils have also been held for the ordina- 
tion of evangelists, as in 1808, when the New Hampshire Associa- 
tion, after adjournment, met as a council at the request of the Gil- 
manton Baptist Church, and examined the candidate. In 1835, a 
council at Cortland, N. Y., voted to ordain Samuel S. Day "as an 
evangelist, and in the afternoon to set him apart for a missionary 
to preach the gospel among the heathen in a foreign land." 26 . In 
1864, a council called to meet in Wellsburgh, N. Y., to consider the 
propriety of ordaining a candidate as chaplain for the army, voted 
to proceed to ordination. 27 

In December, 1894, a council met at the Calvary Church, New 
York City, to consider the propriety of ordaining Henry C. Vedder, 
who had not been called to a pastorate but was Professor of Church 
History at Crozer Theological Seminary. The following preamble 
and resolution were offered: 28 

"Whereas, the ordination of men who are to be 
neither pastors nor deacons, to what is called 'the min- 
istry,' implies the conferring of what others call 'holy 
orders,' and the creation of a third office belonging to no 
church and responsible to no organization, * * * 
therefore 

Resolved, that before we proceed * * * we in- 
quire * * whether such ordination would be in any 
sense a departure from the long-cherished customs of 
our churches * * *" 

The resolution was laid upon the table by vote of the council, 
which advised the ordination of Professor Vedder. 



26 Howell, W. J. Hist. Discourse at Centennial Anniversary. 

^Watchman and Reflector, Oct. 6, 1864. 

28 Watchman, Jan. 3, 1895. This incident was discussed in the denom- 
inational press of the time. The Watchman of Jan. 31, 1895, contains a let- 
ter from Dr. E. T. Hiscox, who thought there was neither precedent nor 
authority for the ordination. There seems no valid objection, however, from 
the Baptist conception of ordination, to setting apart to certain functions, as 
those of evangelists, foreign missionaries and theological teachers. There 
have certainly been precedents for the two former classes; the ordination of 
Joel S. Bacon, the President of Georgetown College, Ky., in 1831, and that 
of J. L. M. Curry, the President of Howard College, in Alabama, both cases 
virtually in response to the feeling that a college president should be a min- 
ister, may be cited as precedents for the last class, though neither of these two 
was specifically a theological teacher. 



THE FUNCTIONS OF THE COUNCIL 69 

4. INSTALLATION AND DISMISSION. 

''The word 'installation' has been creeping into use among us," 
remarked one of the leading denominational papers editorially, some 
twenty years ago, "but the thing never." 29 

It is true that the word "installation" has often been loosely used 
for a public recognition of a minister who is just entering upon a 
pastorate, instead of restricting its use to denote the formal induc- 
tion of a minister into a specific pastorate. Recognition, strictly 
speaking, implies that the minister has already entered the pastoral 
office. The mere presence of delegates, invited to attend a recog- 
nition service, does not transform the latter into an installation; it 
becomes practically equivalent to that, however, if the delegates are 
called in council and are asked to give formal recognition of the 
new pastoral relation. 30 Moreover, there have been cases among 
the Baptists where a council has been called to install a pastor, and 
it has voted to proceed to the installation. So when we read that a 
Baptist minister has been installed, it may be that he has only been 
publicly recognized ; if we read that he was recognized or installed 
by a council, we may understand the event as virtually, if not actual- 
ly, an installation. 

The earliest instance of a Baptist installation council, (not to 
consider that of Congregational churches called by the First Baptist 
Church of Boston in 1764), distinct from one called primarily to 
ordain, appears to have been in 1770, when the West Royalston 
(Mass.) Church called "an ecclesiastical council to install as pastor 
the Rev. Whitman Jacobs." 31 In 1802, the same church called a 
council to install Elder Hodge as its pastor. 

Late in I788,the New London (N. H.) church had been recog- 
nized by a council and the next week it voted to call as its pastor 
Eider Seamans, who had been acting as town preacher since June 
of the previous year. Upon his acceptance, a day was appointed for 
his formal installation. The large council which convened from four 
neighboring towns "inquired into Elder Seaman's ministerial quali- 
fications, his dismission from the church (in Attleboro, Mass.) and 



29 Watchman, April 17, 1884. 

30 The action of the council for public recognition called by the First Bap- 
tist Church, Bristol, R. L, may be cited as an instance (Christian Watchman, 
Nov. 23, 1842). 

_ "Voted, That we are perfectly satisfied with the religious views and ex- 
perience of the Rev. Edward Freeman, and consent to aid in the services of 
recognizing him as pastor of this church." 

31 Kenny, Silas. Hist, of the W. R. Bapt. Church, in Wendell Assoc. Min- 
utes of 1854. 



70 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

recommendation to this church." 32 The second pastor of the New 
London church was also installed, in 1828. Although he had been 
previously ordained, "the Council nevertheless proceeded to hear 
his Christian experience, call to the work of the ministry, and his 
views of Christian doctrine, as though for re-ordination, not a 
mere recognition." The third pastor of this church, who began his 
pastorate in 1836. was not installed. 

The church at Barnstable, Mass., installed its pastor in 1802. 
Delegates from five churches were present, and as a moderator and 
clerk were chosen, this appears to have been installation by council. 33 

In 1803, Rev. Elisha Williams was installed as pastor of the 
church at Beverly, Mass. In giving the charge to the pastor, Dr. 
Stillman of Boston said : 34 

"On the present occasion, we have not met to ordain 
this our Brother, but to introduce him, as already or- 
dained, to the pastoral care of this particular church and 
society, agreeably to their unanimous call. This might 
have been done in a private way, but the present mode, 
in my judgment, is more eligible, because there is an 
obvious religious fitness in it. The character of a min- 
ister of the gospel is sacred and important. Instalment 
is a solemn covenant entered into between him and the 
church ; no matter how public it is. Let God, angels and 
men witness the interesting transaction. And may the 
repeated recollection of it happily prevent pastor and 
church from acting incompatible with their obligations 
to God and to each other." 

Apparently Dr. Stillman considered the presence and the action 
of the council as adding to the publicity, the deliberateness and the 
solemnity of the covenant thus made between pastor and people. 

In 1822, a council for installation was held at Roxbury, Mass. 
This proceeded to the public exercises of the occasion only after 
examining the proceedings of the church and the testimonials rel- 
ative to the pastor-elect, and having heard his Christian experience, 



" 2 "Centennial History of the Bapt. Church," in History of New London. 

^Christian Watchman, Sept. 23, 1836. 

34 Dr. Stillman speaks of "the part assigned me by the council," as does 
another participant, showing that the council arranged the program, at least 
nominally. The addresses are published in a pamphlet entitled "Sermon de- 
livered at Beverly, June 15, 1803, at the Installation of the Rev. Elisha Wil- 
liams to the Pastoral Care of the Baptist Church and Congregation in that 
Town, by Thomas Baldwin, A. M." 



THE FUNCTIONS OF THE COUNCIL 7 1 

call to the ministry, and his views of doctrine and the gospel ordi- 
nances. 35 

Similar cases might be multiplied, but sufficient examples have 
been cited to show that Baptist councils have exercised a function in 
the installation of pastors. The thing as well as the name has been 
among American Baptists. Yet it has by no means ever been a gen- 
eral custom among them and was early considered superfluous. The 
Lincoln Association of Maine declared against installation in 1815, 
and two other Associations in the same State, the Cumberland and 
the Bowdoinham, did likewise only a few years later. When in 
1837, Elder Kenny became pastor of the West Royalston Church, 
which, as we have just seen, had already installed two of its pastors, 
he entered his pastorate by simple vote of his church. He doubted, 
we are told, the expediency and the authority of the common prac- 
tice of installing ministers already ordained. 31 The custom of instal- 
lation, however, has gradually died out among the Baptists and 
councils are now rarely, if ever, called for that purpose. 

It seems fitting that a church which calls a council to install its 
pastor should call another when the pastoral tie is to be severed ; yet 
councils for dismission, except in cases of internal discord, have 
rarely been held among American Baptists. In his "Fifty Years 
among the Baptists," David Benedict wrote, "It may be well for the 
Baptists to call councils for the dismission as well as for the settle- 
ment of their pastors," In 1792, a council was held at East Corn- 
wall, Conn., which was unable to find grounds sufficient for it to 
advise the severance of the pastoral relation in the church there. 36 
In 1832, the council which was called to consider the ordination of 
the successor of Rev. Jonathan Going, was also asked "to express 
their opinion respecting the dismission" of the latter who was about 
to enter upon new duties in connection with the organization of 
home missionary work. 37 This really looked forward to Dr. Going's 
new work, however, rather than to the severance of the pastoral tie 
which was involved; the council would probably not have been 
called for the purpose of considering the dismission only. The other 
cases of councils called to consider dismissions apparently were 
primarily in the interests of peace. 

Reference may be made to an agreement entered into between 
Rev. Isaac Skillman and the Baptist church and congregation and 



35 Christian Watchman, April 13, 1822. 

Tennell, W. G., Hist. Address, College St. Bapt. Church, East Corn- 
wall, Conn. 

37 Christian Watchman, Jan. 27, 1832. 



72 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

their Trustees at Salem, N. J., in 1791, which concerned the disso- 
lution of the pastoral relation in case of discontent. 38 

"And further the said parties agree and promise each 
to the other that if any discontent on the part of the said 
Mr. Skillman, whereby he should wish to be dismissed 
from serving said Church and Congregation, or if any 
discontent should arise in the Church and Congregation 
that they should wish to have the said Mr. Skillman dis- 
missed from being their minister, in either case, they 
may, if either of them see meat (sic) call the minister 
and two of the members from Cumberland and Wilming- 
ton Baptist Churches to judge between them, and their 
determination shall be binding to each party." 

The judges thus provided for may not strictly be considered a 
council ; moreover, the agreement does not seem to apply to a sever- 
ance of the pastoral tie by mutual consent. On the other hand, it 
does not apply to differences between pastor and people except when 
these lead to the desire on one side or the other for the termination 
of the pastoral relation. It is apparently intended to apply to the 
situation before an acute stage is reached, and so may be called 
an agreement for a council of dismission as well as in the interests 
of peace. 

5. DEPOSITION AND RESTORATION. 

If ministers are given standing among the churches by receiving 
ordination only upon the approval of a council, it is only consistent 
that their standing should not be wholly at the mercy of a majority 
in a single church, but that they should be deposed, if unworthy, 
similarly by the advice of a council which should examine into the 
case. Likewise, if a deposed minister be found later worthy of re- 
admission to the ministerial office, he should be restored only upon 
the advice of an adequate council. 

In 1793, a mutual council, called to consider charges against the 
pastor of the Marshfield (Mass.) church, advised the church to de- 
pose him from his office and the church thereupon did so. 39 In 18 14 
the Lincoln (Me.) Association 

"Voted, that it is the opinion of the Association 
that it is expedient that a council be called by the 
Churches, to depose an elder from or restore him to his 
office." 



38 Semblower, A. H., Hist, of 1st Bapt. Church, Salem, N. J. 

39 Centennial History of Marshfield Church. 



THE FUNCTIONS OF THE COUNCIL 73 

The Muscle Shoal Association of Alabama, in 1823, expressed a 
similar opinion in regard to restoration. 40 

" 'Query. Is it good order, or not, for a church to 
restore an ordained minister, who has been excluded, to 
the full functions of the ministry, without the aid of a 
presbytery?' Answer. We think it not in order in a 
church." 

These expressions by the Associations are evidently not intended 
as innovations, but as reflections of the ideal polity of the times. In 
the South, it has been more customary to have a council consisting 
only of ministers to sit in judgment upon such cases ; and in the 
North, that method has been occasionally employed. In 1825, the 
Ministerial Conference of the Woodstock (Vt.) Baptist Association 
deposed a minister, 41 and as recently as 1904, a mutual council com- 
posed of leading ministers which met at Tremont Temple, Boston, 
advised a suburban church to depose one of its members, a former 
pastor, from the ministry. 42 In a case which seriously disturbed the 
First Church of New York City in 1829, a committee of the church 
investigated the charges against the pastor, and submitted their re- 
port to five neighboring Baptist ministers of repute for their re- 
view. 43 Somewhat similarly, the Waco (Texas) church in trying 
their pastor for heresy in 1889, invited in the other Baptist pastors of 
the city to sit as an advisory council. 44 This council was not to try 
the case, however, but to observe the proceedings of the church that 
it might certify to the fairness of the trial. 

In 1840, a council called to consider troubles in one of the 
churches in New London, Conn., which had deposed a minister, ex- 
cluding him and several other members, in addition to its recom- 
mendations on the specific business submitted to it, passed the fol- 
lowing resolution : 45 

"Resolved, That it is the deliberate decision of this 
Council that it is inexpedient for a Church of Christ to 
proceed in their discipline against a minister to his exclu- 



40 Holcombe, Hosea. History of the Rise and Progress of the Baptists 
in Alabama, p. 166. 

41 Christian Watchman, Feb. 12, 1825. 

42 Watchman, May 12, 1904. 

43 "The Proceedings of the First Baptist Church of New York in Rela- 
tion to the Slanderous Charges brought against their Pastor, Elder William 
Parkinson, by Maria Shade, otherwise called Maria Seaman." 

44 "Trial of M. T. Martin by the First Baptist Church at Waco, Texas." 
Official Report. 

45 Christian Secretary, Jan. 15, 1841. 



74 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

sion, without first calling to their aid an ecclesiastical 
Council." 

In 1879, a council was called at Athens, N. Y., to review the 
action of the church there in withdrawing fellowship from its late 
pastor. The council approved the action, which, however, in its 
opinion, it would have been wiser for the church to have taken after, 
rather than before the advice of the council was sought. 46 

In most of the cases where councils have been called to consider 
the deposition of ministers, the charges preferred have involved 
moral lapses. It is not within our sphere to consider these in detail, 
and already enough has been said to show the normal way in which 
such cases have been treated. 47 In a few cases the charges have 
been of heresy, which councils have considered in some instances as 
sufficient warrant for deposition from the ministry. In 1823, for 
example, the First Church of Trenton, N. J., called a council of four 
clergymen, of whom three only met, who found that the pastor had 
"departed from the faith of the particular Baptist Church," and they 
advised that he should "be immediately notified that until he re- 
nounces his errors, he cannot have fellowship as a regular Gospel 
minister." 48 The church thereupon took precipitate action, at once 
excluding the pastor from fellowship. In 1859, the Keokuk, Iowa, 
church was advised by a council to exclude a minister who held open 
communion views. 49 

There have not been many cases of councils called to restore 
ministers previously deposed from the ministry, though probably 
there have been more than the few which have come to the attention 
of the present writer. All the cases examined have been faulty in the 
light of true principles of fellowship, in that the councils have been 
significantly small, or were divided as to their advice, or failed to 
show proper respect to the councils which had acted in the deposi- 
tion of the ministers in question. Thus in 1854, a council at Jeffer- 
son, Me., restored a minister by a vote of 11 to 4. 50 In 1877, a 



46 Watchman, Feb. 13, 1879. 

47 A council which was held in Akron, Ohio, in November, 1877, which 
voted to ordain a candidate, was recalled very soon afterwards, serious 
charges being brought against the man. It decided that he had deceived it 
at its first session and so voted the ordination "null and void," and withdrew 
the hand of fellowship. The action in annulling the ordination is criticised 
by the Baptist Weekly. Quoted, with comment, in the Watchman, Jan. 31, 
1878. 

48 Miller, D. H. "Historical Discourse." 

49 Watchman and Reflector, Sept. 15, 1859. 

50 Watchman and Reflector, July 27, 1854. 



THE FUNCTIONS OF THE COUNCIL 75 

small council, after a larger council had taken adverse action, was 
called and voted to ordain a man who had been deposed and excom- 
municated by another denomination, — thus virtually restoring him 
to the ministry. 51 In 1895, a council at N. Kennebunk, Me., by a 
vote of 8 to 3, advised the reinstatement of a man deposed by advice 
of a council held a few years previously in another state ; this coun- 
cil voted down a motion which looked to the consideration of the 
action of the earlier council, thus ignoring the obligations of fellow- 
ship, on which very principle alone the council itself could claim 
any right to exist. 52 

6. COUNCILS CALLED IN THE INTEREST OF PEACE. 

It has sometimes occurred that councils called ostensibly for other 
purposes have actually done their work in the interests of peace. 
Thus, as we have seen, councils invited for the recognition of 
churches have taken into account the relation of the prospective new 
church to those in the vicinity already established ; pastors who ask 
for dismission by a council, or ministers against whom are brought 
charges which, if proven, will lead to deposition, very often have a 
personal following among the members of their own churches, so that 
the latter may be threatened with disruption. In such cases the lack 
of peace is not always formally recognized in the call for the council. 
The ex parte council, also, which from the very nature of its 
creation presupposes a lack of harmony sufficient to make a mutual 
council possible, may be mentioned. All of these classes have 
already been referred to ; it will be necessary to add here only that 
it has sometimes been difficult to decide whether a particular case 
might better have been postponed to be considered in this con- 
nection. 

It will be recalled that the first council of which we have found 
definite evidence was that which was invited by the Middletown 
(N. J.) church in 1712, to advise the church in regard to a division 
which had thrown it into a distracted condition. The method, while 
not that agreed to five years earlier by the churches in the organiza- 
tion of the Philadelphia Association, was nevertheless fully in accord 
with the principles of fellowship which had been clearly stated by the 
Baptists both of England and America. While from 1712 onward 
the Philadelphia and other Associations, through committees and in 
other ways, did what they could to conserve peace and to restore 
harmony where that had been disturbed by discord within a local 
church or between the churches, the council has more often been 



Watchman, Oct. 25, 1877. 
Watchman, Oct. 24, 1895. 



j6 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

used to exercise this irenic function, especially after there has been 
any open rupture. 

We will turn first to the function of councils in cases where the 
discord is between local churches and then where it is primarily 
internal. Perhaps one of the most delicate situations in inter-church 
relations arises when a church desires to admit to its membership 
those who have been apparently unjustly excluded from a sister 
church. Churches which have asserted most vigorously their right, 
because of their independent status, to exclude members without 
interference on the part of any other church, have often been most 
sensitive when another church has asserted its independence by ad- 
mitting these excluded individuals to membership. It is pertinent 
to our subject for us to notice some of the utterances of denomina- 
tional bodies on this problem of inter-church comity. As early as 
1815, the Bowdoinham Association of Maine, in response to the 
query, 

"Is it agreeable to Apostolic Order, and for the peace, 
harmony, and union of churches, for one church to re- 
ceive a member who is excluded from another church of 
the same faith and order, until it is made evident that the 
church excluding, is corrupt in discipline, and struck out 
of the fellowship of the associated body?" 
made answer (according to Millet, it was in concurrence with a vote 
of the Cumberland Association of 1812), — 

"Each church is independent with respect to discipline," 
and also that "an association of churches have no power 
to abrogate the censures of an individual church] and 
therefore all questions and difficulties between churches 
and difficulties between churches and excluded members, 
are to be decided by councils of ministers and churches 
appointed by the consent of parties; and therefore a 
second church may receive an excluded member by the 
advice of a council so called, if the church excluding re- 
fuses to receive such a member at the advice of such 
council." 

This principle has generally been accepted by American Baptists, 
although there have been occasional instances where a church has 
taken umbrage that its exscinding action has not settled for all time 
the ecclesiastical standing of the persons involved. Specific refer- 
ence may well be made to the action of a representative council held 
in New York City in 1851, at the call of the Tabernacle Church, 
which desired to admit to its membership three men who had been 
excluded from the First Baptist Church of that city, the latter body 



THE FUNCTIONS OF THE COUNCIL 77 

having declined to join in calling a mutual council. This council 
comprised delegates from twenty-seven churches in New York, New 
Jersey, Rhode Island and Massachusetts, and included several men 
of exceptionally high repute in the denomination. Five of the latter 
as a Committee, drew up a statement in the form of Resolutions, 
which were adopted by the council as expressing the true relation of 
the principles of independence and fellowship involved. 53 

"i. Resolved, That the independence of each Baptist 
church is sacred and inviolable, but is also, as between 
one church and another, as equal as it is sacred; and 
each church has the authority given by Christ to admin- 
ister his laws, responsible to him alone. 

"2. Resolved, That it is an established principle that 
no Baptist church is clothed with legislative powers to 
make new terms of membership or fellowship other than 
those already provided in Christ's code and constitution, 
the New Testament, and that if in any case a church be 
thought by a sister church to have already transcended 
the ordinary usages of our churches, and these, the prin- 
ciples of the gospel, in the exclusion of members, and if 
the church so judging, after having fraternally employed 
all proper and practicable means to induce the exscinding 
church to reconsider their act, deem it required by Chris- 
tian equity, they may proceed in the exercise of an equal 
independency to receive into their own fellowship, such 
excluded brethren. 

"3. Resolved, That in view of the evils which must 
ensue from such apparent collision of independent 
churches, any church feeling itself called to such recep- 
tion of the excluded of another church, should move only 
after the most patient and thorough scrutiny, and should 
regard the step as a most grave one, to be taken only 
under circumstances pressing and peculiar. 

"4. Resolved, That on the other hand, to acknowl- 
edge no power in any sister church to rectify an over- 
sight or a wrong out of the discipline of another church 
. would be, to give to any exscinding church, a sovereignty 
and infallibility, as before all sister churches, which is not 
consistent with Christian equity, and Christian freedom — 
not consistent with the best practices of our best churches 
in their best days — and not consistent with the principles 
of the New Testament and its ecclesiastical polity." 



Watchman and Reflector, April 24, 1851. 



78 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

This action did not explicitly mention the council, but it is obvi- 
ous that the second and third resolutions involve the consideration 
of the situation by a council as a fraternal means of a "most patient 
and thorough scrutiny." The Resolutions were not considered legis- 
lative on the part of the council, but merely an expression of what 
they believed was the general opinion of American Baptists in the 
face of such conditions as confronted the Tabernacle Church at 
that time. 

From such a case, involving the part of a council in determining 
the ecclesiastical rights of excluded members who desire to unite 
with some other church, it is a natural transition to those instances 
where councils have been called to consider cases of internal discord, 
when a minority considers that it has been unjustly treated, perhaps 
even to the extreme of exclusion, — but a minority whose cause is not 
espoused by another church. Too often, the church concerned has 
considered it a yielding of its independence or even a qualified 
acknowledgment of wrong-doing on its part if it consents to a 
mutual council. It would be the reduction of the majority to the 
level of the minority. From such a feeling came the query addressed 
to the Warren Association in 1804: 

"Whether a church, after long forbearance and painful 
discipline, have deposed their pastor, and suspended his 
privileges for immoralities; can they consistently join 
him, at his request, in a mutual council?" 
Though in this case the minority consisted of only one, the 
principle involved was the same as though many members had been 
suspended. The Association saw the council in its true relation to 
the local church and also the wider interests of the churches at large 
which were involved ; for an answer it 

"Voted, * * * That it is the opinion of this Associa- 
tion, that it is not inconsistent with divine rule for a 
church, if they see fit, to unite with a person who has 
been excluded from them in a mutual council." 
While there have been numerous cases where churches have 
acted in accord with this principle, there have been too many in- 
stances where a church has insisted upon its rights of independency, 
and by refusing a mutual council has left not merely to the minority 
but to sister churches as well, no other recourse for their guidance 
than that to an ex parte council. 

7. PROMOTION OF LOCAL OR GENERAL DENOMINATIONAL ACTIVITIES 

AND WELFARE. 

While all councils are called avowedly for advice, from most of 
them is sought merely approval of a line of action which has pre- 



THE FUNCTIONS OF THE COUNCIL 79 

viously been practically decided upon by the local church which has 
called the council. Occasionally, however, councils have been in- 
vited to meet to confer with some local church concerning a situation 
in which the course of subsequent action is not yet marked out. In 
the case of the constitution of new churches, for example, there is 
generally an agreement on the desirability of the project upon the 
part of those directly concerned before a council is called. Under 
such circumstances the council of recognition does little more than 
sanction a movement already determined upon. There have been 
cases, however, when the opinion of neighboring churches has been 
sought not merely as a matter of form but from a genuine desire to 
receive the counsel of others who may give sympathetic, though 
unbiased advice, that the line of action may be the more confidently 
marked out. Reference has already (page 61) been made to the 
case at Wallingford. In 1803, the church at West Royalston, Mass., 
called a council to consider the advisability of its reunion with the 
Warwick church, from which it had earlier been separated. 54 In 
1846, the church at Thompson, Conn., referred to a council the 
question of its division into two new churches. 55 

Other questions of local importance have arisen which have led 
churches to seek the advice of sister bodies. Many times, probably 
usually, this is done through committees and informal conferences 
or through the Association, but on several occasions recourse has 
been had to a regularly called and organized council. Thus in 1795, 
the church at Wallingford, Vt., voted to call a council for advice on 
the location of their meeting-house. 56 On April 29th of that year, 
the town voted 

"to request the council that is to attend at Elisha 
Button's next Thursday * * * to give their advice in a 
place where a meeting-house ought to be built for the ac- 
commodation of the town of Wallingford, and seal the 
same and deliver it into the hands of the town clerk, to 
be opened at a future day to which this meeting shall 
adjourn." 
The council made its decision and apparently followed the re- 
quest of the town ; at least, the decision of the council in the matter 
appears in the town records of May 11, 1795, as well as in the 



54 Kenny, Silas. Hist, of the W. R. Bap. Church, in Minutes of the Wen- 
dell Assoc, 1854. 

55 Pinkham, N. J. Discourse delivered at the 100th Anniv. of the Organ- 
ization of the Bap. Church, Thompson, Conn. 

56 Archibald, S. H. Hist. Sketch of the First Hundred Years of the Bapt. 
Church of Wallingford, Vt. 



80 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

church records. At the adjourned town-meeting, however, there 
was a tie vote on the question of adopting the recommendation of 
the council. 

Mariners' churches, from the very nature of their constituency, 
have special need from time to time of the co-operation and advice 
of their sister churches. In 1841, a council of all the Baptist 
churches in New York City was held to consider the expediency of 
forming such a church for seamen. 57 The Mariners' Church of Bos- 
ton in 1858 sought the advice of a council concerning the expediency 
of providing a more suitable house of worship. 58 It is evident that 
weaker churches, which are to a considerable extent dependent upon 
other churches for support, will submit to the counsel of these other 
churches details which a stronger church would settle for itself. 

The council has further been found serviceable in the considera- 
tion of matters of more general denominational interest than such 
local affairs as we have just been noticing. Reference has already 
been made (page 48) to a council called to consider the policy 
to be followed by the New Hampton Institution, involving the de- 
nominational interests in New Hampshire and Vermont, and to that 
called at Chester, Pa., to consider the formation of a new Associa- 
tion. In 1875, the so-called Centennial Council met in New York 
City to advise concerning a denominational observance of the 
national centennial; it recommended the raising of a Centenary 
Thank-offering for the purposes of education, the payment of 
church debts, the erection, of church edifices, parsonages, etc., and 
the enlargement of permanent missionary funds. 59 

The serviceability of the council is very apparent from this brief 
survey of typical illustrations of its various functions. It is certainly 
true that one cannot appeal to the New Testament for a precedent in 
all if in any of these cases ; but the New Testament does recognize 
very distinctly the obligations of fellowship and represents the 
various members of the body of Christ as in organic relation with 
one another. It is this vital principle which has underlain the evolu- 
tion of the Baptist council, not any insistence upon organization or a 
stereotyped system of church polity. 



57 Hist. Sketch of 1st Mariners' Church, N. Y. 

63 Watchman and Reflector, Sept. 23, 1858. 

09 Report of the Joint Committee of the Centennial Council. 



CHAPTER VI. 

THE FURTHER RELATION OF ASSOCIATIONS AND COUNCILS. 

We have already shown through numerous references to the 
action of Associations the general attitude of those bodies toward 
councils and their functions, the material presented being selected 
almost solely with the view to illustrate the historical development 
of the council as an institution and its recognition as an integral part 
of the denominational polity of American Baptists. In the present 
chapter, our purpose is to continue the study of the relation of the 
Associations to the council, noting especially in what ways they have 
directed the trend of the council's development up to the present 
time. 

Even after the council was well established and there was general 
agreement as to its normal place in inter-church relations and in 
questions concerning the ministry, we find that the Associations con- 
tinued to carry on functions that were by that time more usually 
performed by councils. This is true even of those Associations 
which earliest recognized the practical advantages of the council 
and had recommended it to the churches within their own body. 
The Associations have always considered themselves fundamentally 
advisory councils, though with more general functions than those 
which came to be entrusted to the specially called body. In fact, 
among the Baptists there have been relatively few councils called 
for what Dr. Dexter called "light," or for what we have called the 
promotion of local or general denominational welfare, as the Asso- 
ciation itself has been found an efficient body for consultation in 
these matters. The activities of Associations have covered a wide 
range, and instances can be found where some Association has done 
almost everything that a council has been called upon to do. Many 
churches have had no other formal recognition than their admission 
into an Association. So, too, Associations have virtually disfellow- 
shipped churches ; for as we have seen, while membership in an 
Association is a voluntary relationship, expulsion from an Associa- 
tion has been considered as de facto its denominational disfellow- 
shipping. 1 

i. Cf. action of the Richmond Conference in 1804. The previous year 
a committee was appointed to visit the Cambridge church and labor with 
it ; the committee reported to the Association that the church refused to hear 

81 



82 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

Associations have been obliged occasionally to take steps toward 
the harmonizing of factions within a church, as when each of two 
factions claims to be the church, sending messengers to the annual 
meeting ; under such circumstances, it is necessary for the Associa- 
tion itself to decide which set of messengers, if either, is entitled to 
sit in its meeting. So also Associations have been forced to act 
when they have found their own sessions disturbed or their peace 
threatened by discord between two churches, each belonging to their 
membership. 2 One of the original purposes of the Philadelphia 
Association, it will be remembered, was to harmonize differences be- 
tween a local church and some of its members, a principle readily 
extended to differences between churches. 

There have been not a few cases where councils for ordination 
have been called in connection with the meeting of an Association, 
generally for the sake of convenience. While in some cases the 
records or notices are ambiguous, there have been a few instances 
when the Association itself has acted as an ordination council. Ref- 
erence has already been made to the New Hampshire Association in 
1808, when after adjournment, the same body met as a council and 
ordained an evangelist. In 1825, during the first meeting of the 
Wendell Association (Mass.), three men were ordained as were two 
men at the meeting of the French Broad Association (N. Car.), that 
same year. The Chemung Association in 1810 resolved itself into 
an ordination council, and in 1831, the Ashford Conference did like- 
wise. In 1868, on invitation of the Richland (111.) church, the 
ministers and messengers composing the Springfield Association met 
as a council, in connection with its annual meeting, to consider the 
propriety of ordaining a candidate to the ministry. 3 In other cases, 
the Association itself has acted without transforming itself by any 
formal vote into a council. Thus in 1831, the ministers and dele- 
gates of the Westfield Conference (Mass.) met in response to a 
letter missive sent to that body by the First Baptist Church in West- 



and that its visibility was at an end ; whereupon the Association voted "that 
the hand of fellowship be withdrawn." Crocker, Henry. Hist. Sketch of 
the Lamoille (Vt.) Bapt. Association, 1 796-1896. 

2 In 1799, the Georgia Association, upon hearing of "an unhappy dif- 
ference " between two of the churches requested an elder to address a letter 
to one of them "expressive of the views of the Association in relation to 
the difficulty." In 1806, it appointed a committee, in response to the request 
from the church at Sardis for advice in a dispute between that church and 
the Salem church, to visit the churches and labor for a reconciliation. Mer- 
cer, Jesse. "A Hist, of the Georgia Bapt. Assoc." Other cases have already 
been mentioned (pp. 39, 40). 

3 Walker, E. S. Hist, of the Springfield Bapt. Assoc. 



THE FURTHER RELATION 83 

field. 4 Two cases in the Philadelphia Association will be referred to 
presently. 

Associations have also taken action in the deposition of ministers, 
without recourse to a special council for that purpose. To refer to a 
few specific cases, — in 1807, the Vermont Association deposed a min- 
ister. In 1813, the Fairfield (Vt.) Association appointed a commit- 
tee to inquire into a church and the character of its former minister ; 
in 1818, it appointed a committee to examine into the character 
and standing of a minister who had been deposed by a church. 
These last two cases are not strictly cases of deposition by an Asso- 
ciation, but they reveal the easy possibility of the absorption of the 
functions of the council by the Association. 5 In 1822, the Georgia 
Association was appealed to by the minority of a church which ad- 
hered to the minister whom "the church, by a majority vote, had 
deposed from the ministry and expelled from its own membership. 
The Association considered the case, but not only refused after in- 
vestigation to recognize the minority as the church, but approved 
the action of the majority in deposing the minister. 6 In 1825, the 
Muscle Shoal Association (Ala.) adopted the report of a committee 
pronouncing a certain preacher in disorder, and recommending that 
he be no longer recognized as a preacher of the Gospel. 7 In 1832, 
the Eastern Maine Association sanctioned the act of a church in de- 
posing a minister. 8 

Notwithstanding these instances and others which might be 
mentioned, it remains true that it has been the exception that cases 
which concern the denominational standing of churches or min- 
isters have been submitted to the Associations. These bodies them- 
selves, as we have seen, considered reference to a council as more 
fitting, and as a matter of fact, the number of such cases so re- 
ferred far exceeds the number acted upon by Associations. The 
fear lest the latter bodies should develop into synods, with legis- 
lative and even coercive powers, has made the majority of the Bap- 
tists prefer the council, in spite of that looseness in the relation of 

4 Christian Secretary, Jan. 22, 1831. 

5 Among the Congregationalists, the Association grants the license 
to preach and after ordination, the ministerial standing rests in the Asso- 
ciation, which has the power of suspension and deposition. Councils are 
held for ordination, though in Sept., 1904, the Bay Association of Califor- 
nia, at the request of one of its churches, examined two candidates already 
licensed by the Association and recommended their ordination. 

6 Mercer. "History of Georgia Assoc." 

7 Holcombe, Hosea. "History of the Rise and Progress of the Baptists 
in Alabama." 

8 Millet, Joshua. "A History of the Baptists in Maine." 



84 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

any specific council to the denomination, which has especially ex- 
posed the latter to the danger of being misled by packed councils. 
This has been a very real danger and still exists, to judge by occa- 
sional utterances in the denominational press; in fact, the most 
vulnerable spot in the whole institution is the composition of the 
individual council; who is to guarantee to the larger fellowship of 
the churches the integrity of its composition and its competency to 
render impartial and conclusive advice? It has been the conviction 
that the rights of the larger fellowship of the churches needed pro- 
tection from unfairly constituted councils that has led to the most 
significant development of the council since the institution has won 
its acceptance as a part of the denominational polity, — namely, its 
closer co-ordination with the Association, which from its position in 
the denomination, its relatively well defined boundaries, the regu- 
larity of its meetings and the publicity of its records, affords almost 
the only opportunity for even a quasi-denominational oversight over 
the action of local councils. The general feeling that as a rule the 
churches in the same Association as the church calling the council 
should be included among the churches invited, has been referred 
to. 9 In fact, from the very form which inter-church fellowship had 
developed, it was most natural for the associational unit to present 
itself as the normal one for the council. Similarly, the Association 
offered itself as the most obvious and convenient intermediary be- 
tween the local council and the churches at large. The problem is, 
however, to make use of the Association and not have as the inevit- 
able consequence the elimination of the council as superfluous. Such 
a result would change the status of the Association ; at least it would 
enlarge its usual functions and would savor too much of presby- 
terianism to satisfy the Baptists, who are devoted to independency 
as the biblical polity and as more in harmony with the spirit of the 
Gospel. Yet the possibility of making some use of the Association, 
by giving it some co-ordinate or supervisory power with the coun- 
cil, probably accounts for the continued activity of the Association 
in matters which had come to be referred more usually to special 
councils, and for the action of the Philadelphia Association, together 
with the more recent action of other Associations, which must now 
engage our attention. 



9 "The recommendation adopted by many of our New England Associa- 
tions that any church in calling a council should include in the letters missive 
the churches of the Association to which it belongs is based on too sound a 
principle to be lightly set aside. The decisions of a council composed of 
churches selected because of their relations to the question to come before 
it inevitably fail to carry the weight to which the findings of such a body 
should be entitled." — Watchman, Jan. 21, 1904. 



THE FURTHER RELATION 85 

THE PLANS OF THE PHILADELPHIA ASSOCIATION, 1837 AND 184I. 

Ill its very inception and throughout its history, the Philadelphia 
Association has been considered by the churches composing it as an 
advisory council ; its records contain numerous references to matters 
which might have been submitted by the local church immediately 
concerned to a specially called council, but which were referred in- 
stead to the Association. As we have seen, there is nothing unique 
in this, and in general, the attitude of this original and in some ways 
most prominent Association toward the council was not different es- 
sentially from that of other Associations. It has advised that councils 
be held ; it has itself acted as a council. 

It was in temporary efforts, (which may be divided into two 
episodes), to safeguard the ministerial office, that the Philadelphia 
Association took action looking toward the closer co-ordination of 
that body with the council. One of its earliest votes, passed in 1723, 
reads as follows : — 

"Agreed, that the proposal drawn by the several 
ministers, and signed by many others, in reference to the 
examination of all gifted brethren and ministers that 
come in here from other places, be duly put in practice, 
we having found the evil of neglecting a true and previ- 
ous scrutiny in those affairs." 

The latest instances when the Association was itself asked to ex- 
amine candidates for ordination, with no reference to any other 
council, were apparently in 1833 and 1836. On each of these occa- 
sions, the Association appointed committees to examine the candi- 
date and then arranged for the ordination services upon the recom- 
mendation of the committees. . 

The looseness of the practice of the churches in the important 
matter of ordination had given opportunity for some unworthy men 
to gain ministerial standing, whose later careers not only blighted 
the Christian cause in the community where their sins had come to 
light but had cast reproach upon the whole sisterhood of 
churches. It was in the hope of reducing if not eliminating the pos- 
sibility of such evils that led the church of Lower Merion, in 1835, 
to address the following query to the Association : 

"Cannot a more consistent and uniform method of 
licensing and ordaining ministers be recommended to the 
churches ?" 

This was referred to a committee of five, with instructions to 
report, if practicable, at that session of the Association. The com- 
mittee felt the need of a longer consideration of the question, so it 



86 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

was requested to report early at the next meeting. In 1836, how- 
ever, the committee asked for more time, and another member was 
added to it. It is evident that the Association considered the matter 
one of grave importance. Although the question had not been de- 
cided, the Circular Letter of that year referred to the licensing of 
ministers, saying, 

"It is the privilege as well as the duty of every 
church, when called in the providence of God to approve 
of the public gifts, to summon to her aid the counsel of 
the wise and experienced, and then participate with them 
in their deliberations ; but further than this she should 
never venture." 

In 1837, the committee appointed in 1835 brought in its report, 
setting forth the following facts and principles bearing upon the 
question of licensing and ordaining ministers: 

(1) The denomination at large desired and demanded an es- 
sential reform in the matter. 

(2) The laxity of the prevailing method was recognized and 
deplored. 

(3) Some churches are in such a feeble state as to be incom- 
petent to decide on the adequacy of ministerial talent and will be 
guided too much by personal considerations. 

(4) While acknowledging the independency of the local church, 
the committee asserted that her power had limitations in the act of 
consecrating and sanctioning her gifts to the Gospel ministry. 

(5) If the power of licensing and ordaining lies in the ministry 
(as some hold), it can be exercised only at the instance of the 
church; if it lies in the church (as others hold), she must use it in 
a way which shall tend to the general good. If it lies in neither 
separately, but in the two jointly, ordination should be a ministerial 
act at the request of the church. 

(6) The importance of guarding the very entrance to the Gos- 
pel ministry makes advisable a similar participation of power in the 
act of bestowing license. 

In addition to these general considerations embodied in the re- 
port, the committee proposed the adoption of the following resolu- 
tions : 

"Resolved, That this Association elect annually by 
ballot a committee of three to unite with a committee 
selected by any church of this Association desirous of 
licensing or ordaining one of their members to the work 
of the ministry; the concurrence of one or more of the 
Associational committee, when all have been duly noti- 



THE FURTHER RELATION 87 

fied, shall be regarded as satisfactory, and shall com- 
mend said candidate to the favor of all the churches. 

"Resolved, That it shall be the duty of said joint 
committee, when sitting in council with any church, to 
make an impartial inquiry into the moral and religious 
character of the candidate, to examine into his call to 
the ministry, his theological views, and his qualifications 
for a responsibility so vastly important; moreover, they 
shall embrace an opportunity of hearing him preach, and 
if in their judgment he is a suitable person for the min- 
istry, they shall recommend him accordingly to the 
church, and participate with them in the licensing or 
ordination. 

"Resolved, That any church calling a brother to or- 
dination, shall apprize the committee of their desires, at 
least two weeks previously to the time the council are to 
meet. 

"Resolved, That it shall be the duty of the Associa- 
tional committee to make an annual report to the Asso- 
ciation, of the number they have examined for license, 
their names, and the churches to which they may belong ; 
and also, the names of those in whose ordination they 
have participated. 

"Resolved, That the churches be most affectionately 
invited and recommended to sustain the order here com- 
mended to their notice." 

A resolution was offered that the churches be asked to consider 
the recommendation of the committee and report to the Associa- 
tion at its next meeting. After a long discussion, the report was 
referred back to the committee to which five members were added. 
They then reported the matter again to the Association, which 
adopted the five resolutions, and elected three brethren to serve on 
the committee thus established. 

It is not at all surprising to read in the Minutes of the next year 
that the plan was "disapproved of by some of our churches, so that 
unanimity cannot be secured in carrying it into effect," and that con- 
sequently it was voted "That the appointment of said committee be 
dispensed with." The plan was too great a departure from the 
customary method ; it utterly ignored the council, which was already 
a well-established institution, substituting for it the Associational 
committee of three to examine into the qualifications of the candi- 
date. According to the wording of the first resolution, the approval 
of one member of this committee was sufficient to warrant the 



88 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

church to proceed to the ordination; the ordination would be valid 
and the man would be recommended as though by the Association 
itself, though the other two members of the committee might con- 
sider the man utterly unworthy. The approving member might even 
be a member of the church asking advice, which would place the 
whole question of the ordination and its acceptance by the Associa- 
tion within the control of the one church. Possibly the intent of 
the resolution was to make one member of the committee a quorum, 
provided all the members were duly notified. The refusal of the 
Association to refer the matter to the churches for their opinion, 
before adopting it as the method approved by that body itself, nat- 
urally aroused some prejudice against the plan and lent some color to 
the charge that the Association was legislating for the churches; 
yet the plan was only suggested and recommended to the churches. 
As adopted, it permitted such churches as approved it to make use 
of it immediately. 

Although the failure of the scheme is not surprising — the marvel 
is that it was passed at all — the ending of this first episode is an 
anticlimax, after the long consideration of the question by the com- 
mittee appointed in 1835 an d the urgency of the Association in the 
adoption of the new plan in 1837. After dispensing with the ap- 
pointment of the committee, the Association merely "earnestly and 
affectionately recommended to the churches who are about to license 
or ordain any member, that they invite some of the Pastors and 
Deacons of the neighboring churches to participate in their delibera- 
tions." A very mild resolution, indeed, asking that the obligations 
of fellowship be recognized in the matter of licensing as well as in 
ordaining preachers ; but it almost raises the question if the Phila- 
delphia Association had temporarily forgotten that there was such 
an institution among the Baptists as the council. 

The action of 1838 may have been the result of a sense of dis- 
appointment that the churches had not taken kindly to the well-in- 
tended effort at reform. The need of a solution of the problem was 
still felt, however, and the matter appears again in the Minutes of 
1 84 1. The Circular Letter of that year, in a paragraph on "The 
ordaining and licensing of ministers," in referring to certain abuses, 
remarks : 

"To restrain the evils arising from this source, and 
to promote harmony, it is very important that some gen- 
eral rule be acted upon, or if that cannot be, let each 
church and each minister more deeply feel the need of 
caution in a matter so important." 



THE FURTHER RELATION 89 

Further, the Association referred to a committee so much of the 
letter of the Spruce St. (Phil.) church as referred "to the very loose 
and unsatisfactory mode by which councils are formed for the ordi- 
nation of ministers." This committee later in the session reported 
the following resolution, which was unanimously adopted: 

''Resolved, That it be recommended to the several 
churches in union with this body, to incorporate in their 
discipline, the following regulations : 

" Tn all cases of licensing and ordaining ministers, 
and of constituting new churches, several neighboring 
churches shall be requested to appoint two or more dele- 
gates, who shall constitute a Council of advice and as- 
sistance.' 

"The Philadelphia Baptist Association shall annually 
appoint five ministering brethren, who shall be invited 
to attend on such occasions, and compose part of said 
Council." 

It is to be noted that this was an attempt to secure greater uni- 
formity; that it commended the council, which should include the 
representatives from the neighboring churches, although the Asso- 
ciational lines are not definitely suggested as the normal limits. The 
Association was to be recognized by the presence in the council of 
its committee, which, however, was not to sit from any ex officio 
right until invited to take a seat, when it would become an integral 
part of the council. Moreover, it is to be noted that this plan is 
to extend to cases of the constitution of new churches as well as 
the licensing and ordination of ministers. 

It was not till the next year that the plan was really put into 
operation, a similar resolution being passed and a committee ap- 
pointed. At the meeting in 1843, this committee reported that they 
had assisted in the constitution of three churches, had examined two 
men whom they had recommended for license, and had attended 
the ordination of one candidate. One member of the committee 
had assisted at another ordination. The report concludes, 

"Others, your committee learn, have, during the 
ecclesiastical year, been licensed by some of the churches, 
without complying with the recommendation of the As- 
sociation. 

"In conclusion, your committee would recommend to 
the churches wishing to license or ordain candidates for 
the ministry to give at least two weeks' notice to the 
Associational Committee — and in no case to publish 
before calling the committee, that an ordination will take 



go BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

place on a specified day — your committee being of the 
opinion that on a previous day the candidate should be 
examined, and a sermon by him delivered, and then the 
arrangement be made for ordination on some future 
day." 
The report of the committee was concurred in. 
In 1844, the committee reported that they had heard three ap- 
plications for licenses, 

* * * «k ut f rom the fact that .churches and 
brethren have misapprehended the object of our appoint- 
ment, and opposed it, we have found the fulfilment of 
our duty attended with more pain than pleasure. 

"But we are deely impressed with the importance of 
having some protection from an incautious sending forth 
of men unfit for the great work of the Gospel ministry." 
So the second plan of the Philadelphia Association met a fate 
similar to that of the first, and in 1845, this second episode came to 
an end, when it was 

"Resolved, That this Association recommend most af- 
fectionately and earnestly to the churches composing this 
body, in no case to give license to persons to preach the 
Gospel without first asking, and if possible, securing the 
advice of at least three neighboring, and if practicable 
the most experienced aged ministers." 
If this resolution is compared with that of 1837, it will be seen 
that it is even more mild in tone. The Philadelphia Association had 
failed to solve the problem, and was apparently content with failure. 

ADVISORY COMMITTEES. 

The real significance of the two plans adopted but soon aban- 
doned by the Philadelphia Association was in the endeavor to use 
the Association as an intermediary between the individual council 
and the denomination at large for the special purpose of safeguard- 
ing the interests of the latter. The present writer has been unable 
to trace any definite historical development from these plans of the 
oldest Association, but the later attempts of various Associations to 
improve the efficiency of the council have, as a matter of fact, been 
along lines closely parallel to the Philadelphia plan of 1841, viz., the 
appointment of an advisory committee on councils, not, however, to 
sit in the council itself as representative of the Association, but to 
insure a competent council and to conserve the welfare of the larger 
sisterhood of churches. As the weakness of the council had been 
especially felt in its relation to the admission of candidates to the 



THE FURTHER RELATION 9 1 

ministry, it has sometimes been considered sufficient if the functions 
of an advisory committee have not extended beyond an oversight 
over ordination, though it is really the competency of the special 
local council which is in question. 

We have just said that no definite connection of the later with 
the earlier plans appears ; nor is it easy to trace the historical rela- 
tion of the later plans to one another. 10 In the case of the plan of the 
Chicago Association, we have virtually a substitute for a Permanent 
Council, the effort to introduce the latter having been defeated. It 
seems better, however, to consider the Advisory Committee before 
turning to the Permanent Council, which we reserve for the next 
chapter. For our purpose in this study of the council as an institu- 
tion, it will be sufficient to sketch briefly the history of two or three 
of the plans for Advisory Committees which are in use to-day, and 
which will show, in typical examples, how the effort is being made 
to use the Association in conjunction with the council for the pro- 
tection of the denominational interests. 

It was in 1891 that the plan of an associational ordination com- 
mittee was first proposed to the Michigan Baptist State Convention. 
After a somewhat impassioned debate, the matter was tabled for a 
year; meanwhile, the opinion of the several Associations was to be 
ascertained. In 1892, it was found that sixteen out of twenty-one 
Associations had taken action ; of these, six approved and one other 
endorsed the general purpose of the proposition, but nine disap- 
proved, so for the time the matter was dropped. In 1896, however, 
the Saginaw Valley Association appointed an ordination committee 
and voted to ask the State Convention to advise the other Associa- 
tions to take similar action. At its meeting in October of the same 
year, the State Convention unanimously adopted the proposal, which 
was confirmed by the ratification of the plan by most of the Associa- 
tions. The Standing Resolutions, under which the Ordination Com- 
mittees do their work, appear in the Minutes of the State Conven- 
tion, together with an explanatory note, both of which are inserted 
here. 

"Section 1. This Association shall appoint a com- 
mittee of five, before whom all candidates for the min- 



10 Where a plan has been adopted through concerted action, as in 
Michigan, the historical connection can be traced. Yet here, when we 
try to trace the connection with earlier associational committees, we find it 
merely in the casual remark of a minister as he was passing through De- 
troit, that some associations in New York had an ordination committee. 
Cf. an article m "The Standard," March 11, 1905, by C. E. Conley, who in 
a letter to the present writer, says : "The remark gave me the suggestion, 
which I finally developed into the present ' usage ' in Michigan." 



92 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

istry are expected to appear for examination, prior to the 
call of a council for ordination. 

"The said committee is to institute inquiry into the 
past history, moral character, religious life, literary and 
theological attainments, and general fitness of the candi- 
date seeking ordination to the Christian ministry. 

"Sec. 2. That we advise the churches composing 
this Association to make no arrangements for the ordina- 
tion of any man, until after he has passed the preliminary 
examination of this committee, and received their recom- 
mendation for ordination. 

"Sec. 3. That the church calling the formal council 
of ordination invite all other churches within the bounds 
of the Association to send delegates to sit with them in 
the council; that the invitation be issued at least three 
weeks before the date set for the meeting of the council, 
and that no delegates, nor churches, outside the Associa- 
tion, be invited to vote in said council. 

"(The above resolution was so changed by the Kala- 
mazoo River Association as to include knowledge of 
Systematic Theology among the points upon which the 
committee is -to institute inquiry, and by St. Joseph Val- 
ley and Alpha Associations, so as to enable the church 
calling the council to invite churches beyond the bounds 
of the Association to send delegates empowered to vote. 
* * * (as), owing to the small number of churches 
composing the Associations, they might not otherwise be 
able to secure a proper representative council.)" 

In 1898, the Long Island (N. Y.) Association, after having 
voted the previous year to table resolutions calling for the annual 
appointment of "a committee of nine, to be known as a Committee 
on Ordination," adopted, by a vote of 96 to 8, the following resolu- 
tion, which was preceded by a preamble : 

"Resolved, That the Moderator of the Association 
shall annually appoint a committee of nine brethren ( six 
pastors and three laymen), to be known as "The Ad- 
visory Committee." It shall be the function of this com- 
mittee to counsel with the churches or brethren connected 
with the Association who may purpose the calling of a 
council. 

"Upon the invitation of the church or brethren, the 
Advisory Committee shall consider the occasion and in- 
vestigate the circumstances. They shall then counsel 



THE FURTHER RELATION 93 

with reference to the wisdom and expediency of con- 
vening a council. 

"If the proposed council be for the ordination of a 
brother to the work of the Gospel ministry, the Advisory 
Committee shall first carefully examine into the character, 
doctrinal convictions and ministerial gifts of the brother, 
and they shall advise both the candidate and the church 
with reference to the calling of the council. 

"We recommend that the churches of the Association 
purposing the calling of councils shall first invite the 
consideration and advice of the Advisory Committee, and 
incorporate in the official call for the council the com- 
mendations of the Committee. 

"The purpose of this resolution is not designed to 
preclude the privilege of any aggrieved brethren who 
may believe, that they have just cause for the calling of 
an ex-parte council. 

"Nor is it designed to contravene the privilege of any 
church or brethren appealing directly to the churches, ac- 
cording to Baptist custom." 

It is at once evident that this is not essentially different from 
the Michigan plan, except that it recommends that the Committee 
be consulted in all cases when a church is considering the calling 
of a council, not merely for the preliminary examination of a candi- 
date for ordination. 

The functions of the Advisory Committee on Councils of the 
Chicago Association are practically the same as those of the same 
Committee in the Long Island Association. It was first appointed 
in 1900, upon the recommendation of a committee to which certain 
queries of the Centennial Church concerning councils had been re- 
ferred. As already mentioned, the Advisory Committee - in this 
Association is virtually a substitute for the Permanent or Annual 
Council, which had failed of adoption a few years earlier. In spite 
of the limitations upon the functions of this Committee, from its 
beginning it has been held in suspicion by some, and at the meeting 
of the Association in 1904, it was voted to ask the opinion of the 
churches as to its continuance. 11 



11 At the meeting of the Association in 1905, the report of the Advisory 
Committee on Councils was presented and adopted. Its statement as to its 
own status was as follows : 

"Last year a resolution was adopted by the Association instructing the 
clerk to insert in the call for the meeting of 1905 the question whether this 
committee be continued. As a result of this appeal to the churches, 29 voted 



94 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

It may be said that the advocates of the Advisory Committee 
quite generally express their satisfaction with the practical work- 
ings of the plan. Theoretically, it may seem a needless addition to 
our polity, to expect a church to ask advice on the question whether 
it should ask advice or not ; yet the scheme does protect the churches 
from an undue multiplicity of councils and in the case of candidates 
for ordination, the preliminary examination may spare an unpre- 
pared candidate a more public embarrassment. Opposition to it 
has been based on a theory of rigid independency rather than upon 
any criticism of the actual working of the plan. Perhaps the severest 
criticism might come from those who approve of the purpose of the 
Advisory Committee, but believe that in the end it is wiser to handle 
the problem of the relation of the council to the denomination in a 
direct fashion, rather than by indirection. Moreover, some feel 
that the plan concentrates in a few individuals too great a restrictive 
power, and in case the Advisory Committee should be by a bare ma- 
jority adverse to the calling of a council, the possibility of confusion 
is very evident. Even when, as in the Long Island Association, the 
plan explicitly reserves the privilege of any church to appeal di- 
rectly to the churches, there would be uncertainty on the part of the 



for and 9 against its continuance. The vote was not large. We take it 
that the nine votes against it represent almost all if not all the active opposi- 
tion. Of the remaining large number of churches not voting we conclude 
that they had not known enough of the work of the committee to pass judg- 
ment upon it. The work of the committee has not been conspicuous and we 
are not surprised that many of our people know nothing about it. 

"From the first there has been opposition on the part of a few of the 
brethren. The opposition is based so far as we can discover on the supposi- 
tion that its continuance jeopardizes the principles of Baptist independency. 
The committee has been in existence long enough to settle the question 
whether any of those principles which constitute the basis of our denomina- 
tional life are endangered by its continuance. During its entire history of 
five years we have not known of a single specific instance in which its course 
has been criticised. It has never assumed any authority. It has confined 
itself to the giving of advice and this advice has been given only when asked 
for." 

A resolution, "that the negative vote of a large minority of the churches, 
representing a membership of 3,398, with right on this floor to 71 votes, calls 
for a readjustment in the matter of the Advisory Committee on Councils. 
We therefore recommend that the churches refer to such matters, concerning 
which they may desire advice and counsel to the City Mission Board . . .," 
was presented with others by the Committee on Resolutions. It was not 
adopted, however, but "was referred to the Committee on Program, with 
instruction to find if possible a place on the program of either the afternoon 
or evening session when time could be given for considering the suggestion 
of the committee regarding the continuance of the Advisory Committee on 
Councils. The matter was not again brought up during the session of the 
Association." 



THE FURTHER RELATION 95 

church desiring to issue the call and on the part of the churches 
called. While the Chicago Association of course does not deny the 
right of direct appeal to the churches, it has recommended, through 
the adoption of the report by which the Advisory Committee was 
constituted, 

"That no council be called except upon the recom- 
mendation of this committee, and that the churches do not 
send delegates to any council within this Association 
unless the call have the approval of the advisory com- 
mittee." 

It is extremely unlikely, however, that any member of an Ad- 
visory Committee would oppose the calling of a council unless the 
reasons for opposition were sufficiently sound to convince the rest 
of the committee as well. 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE PERMANENT COUNCIL. 

While other Associations have from time to time given expres- 
sion to opinions concerning the council, and an examination of all 
their records would possibly reveal plans and suggestions fully as 
interesting as the schemes at which we have been looking, yet noth- 
ing appears of special or more than local significance till we come 
to the action of the Southern New York Baptist Association cul- 
minating in 1895. Two years previously, at the annual meeting of 
the Association, Rev. William C. Bitting, D. D., then pastor of the 
Mount Morris Baptist Church, had read a paper on "The State of 
Our Churches in New York City," and on Oct. 11, 1894, he read 
another paper on "Our Present Denominational Status," which was 
ordered printed in the Minutes, where it appears under the title, 
"The Status of Our Churches." After a somewhat detailed statis- 
tical analysis of the conditions of the churches, Dr. Bitting appealed 
to the Association to face frankly the situation and the problems 
which he had described and defined. "Let us be practical, definite, 
and united, and we will see new fruits." After a discussion, a com- 
mittee of five, with Dr. Bitting as chairman, was appointed "to con- 
sider the condition of our denomination within the boundaries of 
this Association, and make such suggestions for its improvement as 
may seem to be best to them." 

On Oct. 9, 1895, this committee reported at some length. In 
considering the relations of the churches to each other, it noted the 
following : 

1. The lack of fraternal intercourse between our 

churches. 

2. The want of cordial co-operation, mutual interest 

and helpfulness. 

3. The need of systematic and thorough superinten- 

dence and cultivation of our field of operations. 
To sum up, it may be said that our churches are 
denominationally in a loose, disintegrated condi- 
tion, neither in as close touch with adjacent popu- 
lation, nor with one another as they should be. 
96 



THE PERMANENT COUNCIL 97 

The report then emphasized the need of closer co-operation : 
"Our present weakness results in our opinion partly 
from a failure to perpetuate this essential principle of the 
New Testament in our associated life, and partly from 
our neglect to adapt ourselves to our changed environ- 
ment. Besides a more rigorous adaptation of our work 
to the conditions of life which surround us, we need also 
to emphasize in our local denominational life this princi- 
ple of oneness, which was so prominent and useful in the 
days of the apostles." 

The committee then suggested a definite plan by which to secure 
the desired end, consisting of two features, with the first of which 
only are we especially concerned. 

"I. That there shall be a permanent Council. 

"i. It shall consist of every pastor, and one delegate 
from each church in the Association. 

"2. It shall maintain an organic relation to the As- 
sociation. 

"3. Its functions shall be to consider all matters 
which are usually referred to special councils, such as : 

"a. The advisability of ordaining candidates, 

"b. The organization and location of churches, 

"c. Matters usually referred to mutual, or ex parte 
councils, 

"d. Or any other matter for which a church usually 
calls a council. 

"4. Its power shall be the same as that which coun- 
cils usually have in our denomination, merely advisory, 
not legislative ; moral, not judicial. Its opinion would vir- 
tually be that of our denomination in the city. 

"5. It shall hold regular meetings, at which it shall 
consider any matters brought before it by any church. 

"6. It shall have the right to request any church or 
churches to submit to it for advice thereon, any matters 
of local importance which affect the general denomina- 
tional welfare or reputation. 

"7. It shall have the right to request brethren who 
contemplate the organization of a church, to submit to it 
a full statement of the conditions under which they pro- 
pose to organize, and all information necessary as a basis 
for proper advice. 

"8. It shall have the power to act for the Associa- 
tion on such business as it would not be expedient to 



98 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

postpone until the next annual meeting. 

"9. It shall report to the Association at its annual 
session. 

"10. The council shall organize itself, and in all 
respects in which its functions are not determined for 
it by the Association, shall define its own duties and privi- 
leges, without in any way interfering with the self-gov- 
ernment of any local church, or violating well-established 
denominational usage." 

The second feature suggested was the appointment of a Pastor at 
Large. His relation to the Permanent Council was to be as fol- 
lows: 

"He shall, so far as his work will allow : * * * 
"5. Do such work as the Permanent Council may 
direct for the interest and development of our whole 
Brotherhood. 

"6. He shall have no official relationship with any 
church, and shall receive no salary from any other source 
than that provided by the Permanent Council. 

"j. He shall be, ex officio, a member of the Council 
and shall be accountable to it." 

The report was received and discussed and finally adopted, the 
Association voting that a printed copy of the report be sent to each 
church in its membership, "with the request that each Church send 
its Pastor and one delegate to a Council to be held at a day to be 
hereafter fixed, to form a Permanent Council as proposed in the 
report." The following resolution was then adopted : 

"Resolved, That we instruct the Clerk of the Associa- 
tion to issue a call to the Churches to send their Pastor 
and one delegate to meet in the Mount Morris Baptist 
Church on the first Tuesday in December at two o'clock 
p. m., for the purpose of forming a Permanent Council 
in accordance with the provisions of the report of the 
Denominational Committee, adopted at this meeting of 
the Association." 

Before turning to the meeting thus called for the organization 
of the Permanent Council, it may be well for us to notice just what 
this new plan was in its relation to the previous development of the 
council. This is the more necessary for the main purpose of our 
study, as the idea of the Permanent Council was strenuously op- 
posed not only by some within the Association in which the plan 
originated, but it created discussions in the denominational press, in 



THE PERMANENT COUNCIL 99 

associational meetings and in various conferences in different parts 
of the country. Much of the opposition which it aroused doubtless 
came from trie term, "Permanent," which suggested to some minds 
a status of the new body quite other than that actually defined by 
the plan adopted by the Association. In its membership, its power of 
self-organization, and its functions, the Permanent Council was to 
follow essentially the principles established in the conciliar system 
already operative in the denomination. The rights of the local 
church and its independency were most carefully guarded. Articles 
i, 3, 4 and 10 contain nothing which can be assailed if one believes 
the ordinary council has any warrant for existence among Baptist 
churches ; it is in terms of this institution that the Permanent Coun- 
cil and its functions are defined. There are three points, however, 
in which the plan for the Permanent Council differentiated it from 
the ordinary council : ( I ) Its organic relation to the Association ; 
(2) Its permanency; (3) Its right to a limited initiative. 

(i) ITS ORGANIC RELATION TO THE ASSOCIATION. 

In its relation to the churches composing it, the relation of the 
Permanent Council was to be precisely that of the specially called 
council, except that there was to be the relation to the churches col- 
lectively in the Association as well as the direct relation of the two 
delegates to each individual church. This simply placed an addi- 
tional check upon the new organization by linking its very existence 
to the Association which was itself based upon a purely voluntary 
relationship. It gave no new powers to the council ; it might be con- 
sidered an extension of the power of the Association, although 
really only the use, in a new direction, of the power already con- 
ferred upon the Association. The organic relation with the Associa- 
tion is only a concrete and practical method of following the principle 
noted earlier, that the associational unit offers itself most naturally 
in the correlation of the local church and the denomination. The 
report of the Permanent Council to the Association would give pub- 
licity to the actions of the former and would assist in the preserva- 
tion of the Council's records. The provision that the Council might 
act for the Association in emergencies between the annual meetings 
of the latter body rests upon the fact that each body represents the 
same constituency. 

(2) ITS PERMANENCY. 

This feature, to which the Permanent Council owes its distinc- 
tive name, and which has caused most of the opposition to it, is 
really not so radical an innovation as the name might suggest, in 
the light of the actual development of the institution which we have 
been tracing — the conciliar system itself. It is the general consensus 



IOO BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

of opinion among American Baptists that in certain situations advice 
should be sought from some sort of council. Although it has been 
customary to call a special council for each case, and that council has 
come into being only upon a special call, dissolving when it has fin- 
ished its special work, the council as an institution may be considered 
established — that is, permanent. It exists as an institution in Ameri- 
can Baptist polity even when no council happens to be in session. 
From their beginnings, the Associations have suggested more or less 
definite plans for the assistance of the churches in meeting the obli- 
gations of inter-church fellowship, their action being wholly de- 
pendent upon its acceptance by the churches. In this regard, there 
was nothing novel or radical in the action of the Southern New 
York Association. 

It is certainly within the province of a church to appoint in ad- 
vance delegates who shall represent the church at any councils in 
which the church may participate during the year, if it has the right 
to entrust other functions to trustees and committees. There is no 
more reason why the co-operation of the churches in the council 
should be sporadic any more than in the Association itself. Each 
is created by the churches and sustained by them ; apart from them, 
neither has any existence. 

The analogy of the development of the Permanent Council can be 
seen in the history of legislative committees. A special committee 
has been appointed for a special purpose. If a similar occasion 
recurs, again a special committee will be appointed. If, however, 
the matter becomes one of constant recurrence, needing frequent at- 
tention, economy, in the broadest sense of the term, demands that a 
standing committee be established. The Permanent Council, as 
established by the Association and the churches, was to be a standing 
committee of advice, as the ordinary council had been a special 
committee of advice. This does not mean that its membership 
would remain the same, thereby setting off individuals as a fixed 
class, nor does it mean that the committee is established forever. It 
does not mean that any final power is given to the council or taken 
from the individual church. In communities where there is only 
infrequent need of councils, and where the churches are sufficiently 
far apart that there will be little danger of their encroaching upon 
the rights of others, the specially called council may be satisfactory ; 
yet such a situation is particularly favorable to unworthy men who 
wish to secure a ministerial standing. Where the churches are 
nearer, as in a metropolitan district, where each church may in a 
peculiar sense affect the entire denominational work of the com- 
munity, a standing council of advice should be able to give that ad- 



THE PERMANENT COUNCIL IOI 

vice more intelligently and more consistently with the larger inter- 
ests of the denomination and full as sympathetically with the local 
interests. Such in general were the reasons for the establishment of 
the Permanent Council by the Southern New York Baptist Associa- 
tion and most of the churches composing it. 

(3) ITS RIGHT TO A LIMITED INITIATIVE. 

Although this feature was early removed by the Council itself, 
as we shall see, it did belong to the original plan as adopted by the 
Association and so should be considered. The sixth and seventh 
articles gave to the Council certain rights of initiative, namely, the 
right to request churches to submit matters to the Council for advice, 
if in the judgment of the Council, the matters affected "the general 
denominational welfare or reputation" ; and in the case of the con- 
templated organization of a church, the right to request "all informa- 
tion necessary as a basis for proper advice." As the expectation of 
the denomination that churches will submit such matters for advice 
has become virtually a moral demand, there appears very little 
power actually conferred upon the Permanent Council in the formal 
permission given in advance that it might take the initiative in 
asking churches to submit matters to it. The individual church 
would not be compelled to grant the request nor need it accept the 
advice of the Council. Yet the two articles seemed to make the 
Council rather than the church the judge of the question whether 
the church should seek advice, and so might needlessly offend the 
sense of independence in the local church. 

Earlier in the meeting of the Association in 1895, a request for 
admission to its membership had been referred to the Committee on 
Application of Churches. After the plan for the Permanent Council 
had been adopted, this committee recommended that the application 
"be referred for further consideration to the new Permanent Council 
about to be formed," and it was so voted. 

In accordance with the vote of the Association, its Clerk sent 
the call for the first meeting of the Permanent Council, sending to 
each church in the Association a printed letter containing the Reso- 
lution adopted by the Association; there was also sent a printed 
copy of the Report of the Committee suggesting the plan for the 
Council. Pursuant to this call, 39 churches sent delegates, consisting 
of 35 pastors and 28 laymen, who met in the Mt. Morris Church on 
Tuesday, Dec. 3, 1895, at 2 p. m. Eleven delegates .appointed were 
not present. Temporary organization was effected by the election 
of Rev. W. H. P. Faunce as President, Rev. Samuel Alman as Clerk, 
and Rev. D. A. Murray as Assistant Clerk. After prayer, the call 



102 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

for the Council was read and the roll of delegates called. The First 
Baptist Church definitely declined to accede to the request to partici- 
pate in the Council. By vote, the temporary organization was made 
the "Permanent Council," and a committee appointed to bring before 
the Council a plan and scope of the Council's work. 

Before considering any cases submitted to the Permanent Coun- 
cil, it may be better for us first to follow further the work of the 
Council in its own organization. At its first session, it passed these 
resolutions : 

"Resolved, that the Clerk of this Council communi- 
cate with the Churches that have neither sent delegates 
nor declined the call to this Council, informing them that 
the Council has convened, and of the strength of its rep- 
resentation, and invite them once more to join us. 

"Resolved, that this Council request its President 
and Clerk to prepare a response to the letter received 
from the First Baptist Church, and again invite them 
to join it." 
The Committee on Plan and Scope did not report till the third 
session of the Council, on Feb. 4, 1896, when it reported the follow- 
ing, which was unanimously adopted : 

DECLARATION. 

The Permanent Council of the Baptist churches of 
the City of New York and its vicinity had its origin in 
the request of the Southern New York Baptist Associa- 
tion to the churches represented in it to form such a 
council in accordance with the suggestion made at thg, 
Associational meeting in 1894. 

Its purpose is to bring these churches into closer as- 
sociation and co-operation without any encroachment 
upon the independence of any church, or interference 
with its right to self-government. 

Its functions are those usually discharged by councils, 
and to consider and act upon any matter referred to it 
by the Southern New York Baptist Association or of 
general concern to the denomination. 

It has the right to request information from any 
church represented in it upon any matters which affect 
the general denominational welfare, and to request those 
who contemplate the organization of a Church to submit 
a statement of the facts which induce them so to do. 
(This paragraph was repealed Nov. 9, 1897.) 



THE PERMANENT COUNCIL IO3 

It has the power to advise, but not to legislate or to 
enforce its conclusions. 

CONSTITUTION. 

Art. I. The name of the Council shall be "The Per- 
manent Council of the Baptist Churches of the City of 
New York and its Vicinity." 

Art. II. The objects, purposes and powers of the 
Council shall be as stated in the preceding Declaration. 

Art. III. Its officers shall be a moderator, vice- 
moderator, recording clerk, corresponding clerk and 
treasurer. 

Art. IV. Each Church connected with the Southern 
New York Baptist Association may send annually, in the 
month of November, its pastor or its associate or assist- 
ant pastor, and one member as delegates to the Council, 
and the delegates thus sent shall constitute the Council. 
The terms of the delegates shall expire with the election 
of their successors. 

Art. V. Regular meetings shall be held on the first 
Tuesday of each month at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, 
unless, by resolution, the Council shall order otherwise. 
The meeting in November shall be the annual meeting, 
and the officers of the Council shall be elected. 

Special meetings may be called by the Moderator, 
and shall be called upon the written request of any seven 
members of the Council. Twenty members shall be a 
quorum for the transaction of business. 

Art. VI. The foregoing Declaration may be amend- 
ed at any annual meeting, and this Constitution may be 
amended at any regular business meeting by a vote of 
two-thirds of the members present, provided that at least 
thirty members shall be present, and a previous notice 
of the proposed amendment shall have been given at a 
regular meeting. 

BY-LAWS. 

Art. I. (This, in five sections, defines the duties of 
the five officers in the usual way. There is need of in- 
serting here only the requirement that the Correspond- 
ing Clerk "shall send notices to the delegates of the time 
and place of holding all meetings of the Council/') 



104 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

Art. II. Order of Business, 

i . Prayer. 

2. Calling of Roll. 

3. Reading of Minutes. 

4. Report of Treasurer. 

5. Report of Corresponding Clerk. 

6. Report of Committees. 

7. Unfinished Business. 

8. New Business. 

9. Adjournment. 

Art. III. These By-Laws may be amended at any 
regular business meeting by a vote of the members pres- 
ent, provided that at least 30 members shall be present 
and a previous notice of the proposed amendment shall 
have been given at a regular meeting. 

At the same meeting in which the Constitution and By-Laws 
were adopted, it was also voted that each Church represented in 
the Council should be requested to contribute towards the expenses 
of the Council a sum of money equal to one-half cent for each 
member reported to the Association at its last meeting. 

At the annual meeting of the Council, on Nov. 9, 1897, the fourth 
paragraph of the Declaration was stricken out for the reasons indi- 
cated. (Page 101.) At the same meeting, an amendment to the 
Constitution was offered, which was adopted on March 1, iJ 



"A Report shall be made to the Southern New York 
Baptist Association at each annual session of the action 
of the Council upon all applications for advice (a) from 
the churches, concerning ordinations to the ministry, and 
(b) from the brethren seeking recognition as a Baptist 
Church. Such reports shall be made for purpose of 
information and record and not for review by the Asso- 
ciation." 

This amendment simply incorporated into the Constitution the 
provision of the ninth article of the original plan as adopted by the 
Association, with a more definite statement of the purpose of the 
report to that body. At this meeting on March 1st, it was 

"Resolved, that a strict interpretation of Art. IV. of 
the Constitution limits membership in this Council to 
churches that are members of the Southern New York 
Baptist Association." 



THE PERMANENT COUNCIL I05 

On several occasions, however, especially during the examination 
of candidates for ordination, visiting brethren have been invited to 
participate in the deliberations of the Council, in accordance with 
the well-established usage in councils, but presumably with no 
power to vote. In October, 1899, the time for the regular meeting 
of the Council was changed to the third Monday of the month, but 
otherwise no further changes have been made in the Constitution 
and By-Laws. On one occasion, March 7, 1899, when a storm pre- 
vented the attendance of a full quorum at the regular meeting of the 
Council, by special vote of those present, the examination of a candi- 
date for ordination was proceeded with. While theoretical objec- 
tions might be raised to such procedure, none seems to have been. 
As the action of the Council was not final but was subject to the 
ratification of the Church asking the examination of the candidate, 
the members present, though less than a quorum, felt justified in 
proceeding. On May 26, 1902, the Council ratified the action of the 
two previous meetings, at which no quorum was present. 

Although in this study of the council as an institution we have 
not paid any specific attention to the method of procedure in the 
ordinary council nor examined definite cases and the action of 
councils except as this would throw light upon the external relations 
of the council, it may be w 7 ell to notice some of the advantages 
which have been discerned in the Permanent Council in the handling 
of specific cases brought before it. 

In cases of request for the recognition of churches, from its 
relation to the Association, the Council has been able to take a view 
of the whole field and the relation of the new enterprise to existing 
interests. While distinct from the Association, in a sense it is a 
large committee of the Association, which will generally adopt the 
Council's opinion as its own ; yet on the question of admitting the 
new church to its membership, the Association has the right to 
review the whole situation. 

In the examination of candidates for ordination, the Permanent 
Council is not handicapped by a definite "terminus ad quern" for its. 
deliberations. The time for the ordination services cannot be set 
very definitely until the Council has acted. Having regular meet- 
ings, the postponement of action or the continuation of the examina- 
tion to a later session is a much less complicated and embarrassing 
affair than the adjournment of a special council to a later day. In 
the very first case of examination which came before the Perma- 
nent Council, it seemed advisable to continue the examination over 
to the next regular session, an arrangement which was readily 
acquiesced in by the candidate and the church immediately 
concerned. 



106 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

While in no sense compelling absolute conformity to any plan 
which it may suggest to the churches or which it may adopt for its 
own guidance, the Permanent Council has been able to bring to the 
attention of the churches certain printiples of action and to make 
some improvements in the methods of conducting the business of a 
council. In 1897, for example, it adopted the report of a Committee 
on Polity, which advised the churches, among other things, to pay 
prompt attention to requests for letters of dismission, and that 
Baptists generally unite with the nearest Baptist Church, if they live 
at a distance from their own. Of more general interest is the effort 
of the Permanent Council to secure a more satisfactory examination 
of candidates for ordination. In 1903, a committee was appointed 
to suggest a Course of Examination in the English Bible ; the com- 
mittee sent queries to various theological teachers and others to 
ascertain their opinion upon such an examination and their recom- 
mendations as to its general scope. At the meeting of the Council on 
Dec. 21, 1903, the Committee reported the following plan, which was 
adopted and ordered sent to the Baptist journals and theological 
seminaries of the country: 

I. That examination of a candidate be upon (1) his 
Christian experience; (2) his call to the Christian min- 
istry; (3) his knowledge of the English Bible; (4) his 
views of Christian truth. 

II. That in the examination on the English Bible no 
difference as to scope be made between graduates of theo- 
logical seminaries and those who have not had such ad- 
vantages, since some knowledge of the Bible is essential 
to qualify any person for entrance upon the Christian 
ministry. The Council can easily adjust the minuteness 
of its examination to the educational history of each 
candidate. 

III. That as a minimum, the scope of the examina- 
tion on the English Bible embrace (1) the names and 
classification of the books of the Bible; (2) the contents 
of any book in the Bible; (3) Bible history, including 
principal biographies; (4) the life of Christ. 

The question of the method of conducting was then raised, and 
the matter referred to the same committee. 

Although in the original plan for the Permanent Council, its 
functions were to include the consideration of "all matters which 
are usually referred to special councils, such a ' S * * * c Matters 
usually referred to mutual or ex parte councils," and in its Declar- 
ation, it was stated that "its functions are those usually discharged 



THE PERMANENT COUNCIL IO7 

by councils," from the beginning the Permanent Council has studi- 
ously avoided becoming an ex parte council and his considered no 
matter brought before it by a minority of a church or excluded 
members of a church. In such cases/ it has been possible either 
to secure the consent of the church concerned that the Council 
consider the case, making it virtually a mutual council, or the 
minority or excluded members have asked to be received into some 
other church, which thereupon has brought the matter before the 
Council for its advice. 

Since the adoption of the amendment to the Constitution provid- 
ing that the Council shall report to the Association, such reports have 
been made and are embodied in the Minutes of the latter body. 

It was natural that the organization of a Permanent Council in 
so prominent a body as the Southern New York Association should 
be followed by the introduction of similar institutions in other Asso- 
ciations, or at least, that the suggestion to organize them should be 
made. In 1896, the Chicago Association, which the previous year 
had expressed itself in one particular concerning the rights of 
councils, 1 adopted the report of its Committee on Resolutions, which 
had presented a resolution calling for a conference of the churches, 
through delegates, to consider the advisability of the organization of 
"a Baptist Council to continue its life throughout the associational 
year." The meeting was held on March 16, 1897, and passed the 
following resolution : 

"Resolved, That this body advise the churches to 
appoint their pastors and two delegates each, to organize 
a Baptist Council to continue through the Associational 
year to perform such duties as belong to ordaining, 
recognizing and advisory councils in the Baptist denom- 
ination, whenever requested by any church desiring such 
advice, so to do. We, however, further advise that the 
delegates do not organize unless two-thirds of the 
churches responding do so favorably." 

This action of the Conference was reported to the Association 
at its meeting in September, 1897, and the above resolution was 
adopted as a part of a report of the committee on the Conference, 
which had already been accepted. A committee of three was ap- 
pointed to carry out the findings of the Conference. At the next 
meeting of the Association, in 1898, the Clerk announced that 31 
churches had reported on the question, 19 being favorable and 12 
unfavorable toward the organization of the proposed council. The 
Association extended the time during which the answers of the 



1. See Chap. V., Note 23. 



108 BAPTIST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

churches might be received until Nov. I, but at that date the neces- 
sary two-thirds was still wanting, so the Annual Council failed of 
adoption by the Chicago Association. The opponents of the plan 
made use of a two-fold argument to secure its defeat, — that it was an 
innovation which rested upon no New Testament precedent, and 
that it imperiled the independence of the churches. The Associa- 
tion was not satisfied, however, with the situation; there were 
obvious defects and even perils in a system which allowed packed 
councils and hasty decisions of vital questions, and very soon, as we 
noted in the previous chapter, the Chicago Association appointed 
an Advisory Committee on Councils which could represent the 
Association in oversight over the cases to be submitted to specially 
called councils. 

In New Jersey, several Associations have organized Permanent 
Councils, and the Worcester (Mass.) Association is about to organ- 
ize one ; the matter has been submitted to the churches and a suffi- 
cient number of them have voted their approval to insure the 
adoption of the plan. All /'these generally follow closely the 
Southern New York order, the chief deviations being found in the 
North New Jersey Association, which in 1900 organized an "Asso- 
ciational Council." This Association repudiates the idea of "per- 
manency" not only by using another term in the name of its 
Council; the Standing Rule under which the Council is organized 
and operated definitely states : 

"That an Associational Council shall be formed each 
year, to which may be referred all matters usually 
referred to Councils by Baptist churches. This Council 
shall be composed of the pastor and two laymen from 
each church in the Association, who shall come together 
for organization at each annual meeting of the Asso- 
ciation at the call of the Secretary of the Associational 
Council." 

This Associational Council has no stated meetings except this 
one for organization, meeting in council only when called together at 
the request of some church. By a rule of the Council, 

"all questions which are usually referred to a Council 
shall first be presented to the Advisory Committee of this 
Council, through its Secretary, * * * and if in their 
judgment it be wise to call this council together to con- 
sider the matter, they shall advise the church to call the 
Associational Council to meet with it for the transaction 
of such business as shall come before them." 



THE PERMANENT COUNCIL IO9 

Presumably, though it is not clear from the language of the rule, 
an adverse judgment of this committee, which is composed of eight 
laymen and four ministers, precludes any church of the Association 
from securing a meeting of the Associational Council. 2 



2. This seems implied in a statement of the function of the Advisory 
Committee and the status of the Associational Council made by the 
Secretary, Mr. Wm. A. May, in a recent letter to the present writer. "This 
Committee is merely a safeguard. It has no power except to advise, and 
if a full council is to be called, it is done by the Secretary in the name of 
and by authority of the calling church expressly given for the occasion. 
Thus is preserved the dignity, independence and authority of the local 
church, which must, however, in requesting the Committee to act, embody 
in its request a stipulation agreeing to abide by the decision of the Com- 
mittee and of the Council if called." This last statement reveals a remark- 
able demand made by the Council and acquiesced in by the churches. In 
view of the practical harmlessness of the term "permanent," as applied 
to such an organized council as that of the Southern N. Y. Association, 
it looks as if the North New Jersey Association had strained out the gnat 
and swallowed the camel. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

CONCLUDING REMARKS. 

In this study of the council as an institution among American 
Baptists, we have traced its development to its latest phases and 
may now briefly review the ground over which we have been passing. 
Finding the occasion for ? the council in the relations existing between 
independent churches of the same order, we saw no need of tracing 
back the line of historic development behind the time when the 
idea of the local church was, so to speak, rediscovered, in the 
Protestant Reformation. We might have begun our study of the 
council among American Baptists with the time when the first 
council was held by them; but finding the principle of the obliga- 
tions of fellowship involved in the genesis of the council, we in- 
quired first as to the theories of inter-church fellowship which were 
held by the early Baptists of England. For as many English Bap- 
tists came to this country and the early American Baptists were in 
constant communication with their English brethren, the American 
Baptist churches would inevitably be influenced by the doctrine 
and polity of the Baptists of England. Examining a historic line of 
Confessions of Faith, we saw that alongside of the principle of the 
independence of the local church and its direct responsibility to 
Christ, there was also recognized the obligation of fellowship. In 
the practice, also, of the English Baptist churches, we saw the recog- 
nition of the same principle, the matter of the setting apart of a 
ministry in particular being considered of wider concern than the 
mere limits of a single local church. Turning to America, we found 
here the same ideas finding expression as the increasing numter of 
churches brought them into more frequent touch one with another. 

The Congregational churches of New England had found them- 
selves confronted by the problems of inter-church relations before 
the Baptist churches were numerous enough for such questions to 
arise. They had already held several councils before the first Baptist 
council was held, and it is probable that the Baptists did not ignore 
the lessons which their Congregational brethren had been learning 
by experience. Yet we are hardly warranted in saying that the 
American Baptists borrowed the council from the Congregational- 
ists. for many of them had been somewhat familiar with it as 
employed by the English Baptists. With the increasing number of 



CONCLUDING REMARKS III 

churches after the Great Awakening, the American Baptists found 
the problems of inter-church fellowship more pressing and in the 
meetings of their Associations, as these problems were discussed, 
the place of the council became more definitely recognized. While 
the Associations themselves were advisory bodies, it was probably 
the fear that they might become too powerful, thus threatening the 
independence of the local churches, which led them to foster the 
council and to preserve it and even to develop it as an institution, 
rather than to have assumed its functions, thus virtually destroying it 
by making it superfluous. It is in the process of the differentiation 
of the council from the Association that we have been best able to 
trace the development of the council ; for in this process, rather than 
in the various functions which have been carried on by councils, is 
the real history of the council as an institution of the American 
Baptists to be discovered. 

Of special significance, therefore, are the more recent phases of 
the council's development ; not that they are intrinsically such inno- 
vations as they have seemed to many, but because they are direct and 
avowed attempts to correlate the local council with the denomina- 
tion at large through the medium of the Association. If the sphere 
of the council has been enlarged, it has been because the denomin- 
tional growth has increased the community of interests and many 
of the contingencies of inter-church relations formerly remote are 
now pressing upon the churches. As the council has from the be- 
ginning been dominated by the practical ends which it has been 
intended to serve, so in the various expedients for Associational 
oversight, the effort has been made to meet and solve certain of the 
practical problems of denominational life. 

There are two tendencies discernible in the polity of the various 
branches of the Christian Church to-day. In those denominations 
which emphasize catholicity and a highly centralized ecclesiasticism, 
there are forces at work disintegrating in their effect upon a rigid 
uniformity and continually asserting the rights of a local and indi- 
vidual expression of religious life. This is a fruit of the demo- 
cratic spirit of the age. On the other hand, those churches which 
have emphasized the individual and the local group of believers, 
show a marked tendency toward closer organization and a more 
complete recognition of obligations to the larger fellowship. It does 
not follow that the movements will continue till the two divisions 
have exchanged their theories of ecclesiastical polity, nor may we 
expect that eventually the two theories will be completely synthe- 
sized. There will always be those who will magnify the universal, 
while others will always be particularists. In each division there will 
be extremists, who doubtless will from time to time teach the Church 



112 BAPTTST COUNCILS IN AMERICA 

useful lessons; yet it is certain that any great advance of the 
Christian Church toward a fundamental and organic unity will not 
follow the extremists either on the one side or the other. 

To a person reared in a highly organized and centralized ecclesi- 
asticism, the council as it exists in American Baptist polity doubtless 
seems a feeble instrument ; advice is proverbially cheap, and a body 
which has only the function of giving advice is essentially insig- 
nificant and at the most, harmless. On the other hand, the person 
reared in a rigid independency is ever suspicious of the council, 
fearing its development into a tyranny. To substitute the advisory 
council for the legislative and disciplinary bodies of the more 
centralized denominations would doubtless result in chaos, if it 
should be done precipitously. If the Baptist churches of America 
should become oligarchical and should lose the spirit of democracy, 
there would be a lurking danger in even an advisory council. There 
is not the slightest suspicion, however, that any of the development 
in the council as an institution among the American Baptists has its 
origin in any disloyalty to the democratic spirit within the church. 
It has come rather from a sense of the great need of showing to the 
critics of Independency, that the democratic spirit is capable of 
producing as efficient an organization of Christian forces as is any 
official oligarchy or spiritual aristocracy. 

The Baptists in America started as particularists and empha- 
sized the independence of the local church, yet they recognized very 
distinctly the obligations of fellowship. There came to be, however, 
a tradition of an independency much more rigid than the actual facts 
of history bear out, and that tradition has been too much exploited 
for the best good of the cause of Christ. Some of the manuals of 
church polity which have been widely used in the denomination may 
be held to a considerable degree responsible for the authority of the 
tradition. Yet the great onward movement of the Baptists has not 
been permanently hindered, for when the traditions conflicted with 
the call of duty as embodied in the obligations of Christian fellow- 
ship, whether among individual Christians or among the churches, 
the Gospel principle has ultimately triumphed. The chief sig- 
nificance of this genetic study of the council is to be found in the 
light it may throw upon the efforts of Independency, as represented 
in the American Baptists, to attain a more perfect efficiency. 



APPENDIX 



The lists that follow make no claim to completeness, but are 
inserted for whatever of service they may be. The writer will be 
glad to receive data concerning councils not included in these lists, 
and also any corrections that may be made by those having more 
direct access to the records of the churches calling the councils than 
has been possible to him. 

A (?) following a date indicates that the council may have been 
held the year previous to the date given ; following the name of the 
place it indicates some doubt as to whether there was a fully organ- 
ized council representing other churches. In some cases, the loca- 
tion of the church calling the council is given rather than the place 
where the council was held. Where the name of the State is not 
given, look above in the list. 



A. A Partial List of Councils up to 1S20. 



17 12- 
1712- 
1718- 
1738- 
1740- 

!743- 
1748- 

J 754- 

1757— 

1764— 

1765— 

1767— 

1770— 

1773— 

r 774— 

1775— 
1776— 

1780— 



781- 



Middletown, N. J. 

Cape May Court House. 

Boston, Mass. (First.) 

Boston. (First.) 

Springfield. 

Boston. (Second.) 

Waterford, Conn. 

Middleboro, Mass. 

Exeter. R. I. 

Exeter. 

Exeter. (2.) 

Boston, Mass. (First.) 

Amenia, N. Y. 

Grafton, Mass. 

West Royalston. 

Sanford, Me. 

Thompson, Conn. 

West Greenwich, R. I. 

( ?)Bellingham, Mass. 

Medfield. 

Newton, Mass. 

Gilmanton, N. H. 

Wells, Me. 

South Kingstown, R. I. 

Manchester, Vt. ( ?) 



1782 — Pownal, Vt. 
1783 — Dighton, Mass. 
1785— (?)Sutton. 
1785 — Hoosick, N. Y. 

West Bridgewater, Mass. 

Wilmington, Del. 
1788 — Sandisfield, Mass. 

New London, N. H. 

Woodstock, Conn. 
1788(F)— Ashfield, Mass. 
1789— New London, N. H. 

Weston, Mass. 

Norwich Plains, Conn. 

Roxborough, Pa. 
1790 — Sandisfield, Mass. 

Norwich Plains, Conn. 

Woodstock. 

Hartford. (First.) 
1792 — Marshfield, Mass. 

Stamford, Conn. 

East Cornwall. 
1793 — Marshfield, Mass. 

Morris, N. Y. 
1795— Clifton Park > N - Y - 



Troy. 



"3 



1795- 
1796- 

1797- 
1798- 

1799- 


Venice. 

Wallingford, Vt. 
—North Berwick, Me. 

Stephentown, N. Y. 
—Thompson, Conn. 
—Thompson. 
—Warwick, Mass. 


1807- 
1808- 


-Boston, Mass. (First.) 

Hartford, Conn. 

Galway, N. Y. 

Stillwater. 
— Gilmanton, N. H. 

North Springfield, Vt. 

Barnstable, Mass. 




South New Berlin, N. Y. 




Bernardston. 


i8oo- 


-Exeter, N. H. 




Mansfield, Conn. 




Grafton, Mass. 




Bennettsburg, N. Y. 




Norwich, Conn. 




Acworth, N. H. 




Norwich. 




Somerset, Mass. 


1801- 


-Abbott's Corner, Quebec. 




North Hector, N. Y. 




Portland, Me. 




Truxton. 




Wallingford, Vt. 
Charlestown, Mass. 


1810- 


-Bath, Me. 
Burrillville, R. I. 




Cazenovia, N. Y. 




Salon, N. Y. 




Cortland. 




Spencer. 




Homer. 


1811- 


—Essex, Conn. 


1802- 


-West Royalston, Mass. 
Barnstable. 




Hartford. 
Suffield. 


1803- 


Cromwell, Conn. 
-Grafton, Vt. 


1812- 


Albany, N. Y. 
— Buckstown, Me. 




Wallingford, Vt. 
Rupert. 




Cheshire, Vt. 
Covert, N. Y. 




Beverly, Mass. 


1813- 


-Canaan, N. H. 




Somerset. 


1814- 


—Canton, Mass. 




West Royalston. 
Butternuts, N. Y. 


1814- 


Sharon. 
-Webster, Mass. 




Covert. 


1815- 


— Methuen, Mass. 


1804- 


-Millis Mem., Troy, N. Y. 
Wallingford, Vt. 
New London, Conn. 


1816- 


Webster. 
Cortland, N. Y. 
—New Haven, Conn. 


1805- 


-Sedgwick, Me. 
Salem, Mass. (First.) 


1817- 


Bennettsburg, N. Y. 
-Alfred, Me. 




Suffield, Conn. (Second.) 




Enfield, N. Y. 




Butternuts, N. Y. 




Forestville. 




Covert. 


1818- 


-North Hector, N. Y. 




Lansingburgh. 




Brookfield, Mass. 


1806- 


Stillwater. 
-Greenfield, N. Y. 


1819- 


Newburyport, Mass. 
—Taunton, Mass. 




Ovid. (2.) 
Grafton, Vt. 




Leverett and Montague, 
Thompson, Conn. 




North Springfield. 
Swanzey, N. H. 


1820- 


Farmer Village, N. Y. 
Ulysses. 
-Forestville, N. Y. 



B. Councils for the Ordination of Deacons. 

1803 — Wallingford, Vt, 1827 — Townsend, Mass. 

1806 — Weathersfield. 1828 — Groton, Conn. 

Ovid, N. Y. 1832— Ovid, N. Y. 

1815— Cortland, N. Y. 1833— Fitchburg, Mass. 

1 81 7 — Ovid. (Council called, but 1848 — Mecklenburg, N. Y. 

no record that it was 1859 — Ovid, 

held.) i860 — Mecklenburg. 

1822(F)— North Hector. 1862— Ovid. 

1822— Danby (Ithaca) N. Y. 1876— Bennettsburg, N. Y. 

Ovid. 
1823 — Manchester, Vt. 
Sandisfield, Mass. 



